Apr. 13, 2007
The Inconsistency of Sola Scriptura
Sola Scriptura, Scripture alone, was one of the two pillars of the Protestant Reformation. Protestants claim that the Bible is the only authority of truth here on earth for us as Christians. They disregard anything extra-biblical as "man's opinion" or "man's tradition". But the irony of Sola Scriptura is that it in itself is an extra-biblical doctrine. Nowhere in the Bible do we see support for the idea that there is a single infallible book that is the pillar and foundation of truth. In fact, we see quite the opposite:
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. ~ I Timothy 3:15
Protestants will accept the fact that there is truth outside of the Bible (Jn 21:25). But, they say that no other truth is needed other than the truth that is presented in the Holy Scriptures. One of the most common passages used to support this doctrine is 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. ~ 2 Timothy 3:16-17
The first thing to consider when reading these verses, is what is Paul referring to when he says "scripture"? Obviously, the Early Christians didn't have the entire New Testament at their fingertips. The gospels and epistles that make up the NT, and also quite a few other epistles that aren't in the canon, were scattered all over the place during the first 400 years of the Church. In the previous verse, 2 Tim 3:15, Paul says that, "from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures". Timothy was raised on the Old Testament. He was familiar with the psalms and the prophets.
The fact is that it wasn't until the year 397 at the Council of Carthage that the New Testament Canon was closed. There was much dispute over which books were inspired by God and which ones were not. There were countless other documents such as the Gospel of Thomas, Epistle of Barnabas, St. Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans, The Shepherd of Hermas, etc., that weren't declared as inspired by the Holy Spirit. So who was it that decided which books were inspired and which ones weren't? The Roman Catholic Church.
Going back to 2 Tim 3:16-17, Protestants may claim that this is sufficient evidence that the Bible alone is the authority for Christians. But nowhere in that passage does it imply singular authority. It does say that Scripture is an authority (the Scripture that they had at the time), that it is "profitable" for "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". But does this mean that Scripture is the only authority that is profitable for these things? The Scriptures (remember that we're speaking in context of the Old Testament) will thoroughly furnish the man of God unto all good works. It will strengthen and build up the man of God - after all, it is His inspired Word! But, as Peter says in his second epistle:
Bear in mind that our Lord's patience mean salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. ~ 2 Peter 3:15-16
The Bible contains many things that are hard to understand. If you have 10 people in one room, and you read a passage of Scripture to them, it's likely that each of them will have a different interpretation of what that passage means. The question is: which of these interpretations is correct?
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation. ~ 2 Peter 1:20
If we want the truth, we're going to need an infallible interpretation of that infallible Scripture. Can any of us claim to have an infallible interpretation?
As I said in my last entry about sola scriptura, the Catholic position in no way undermines the authority of Scripture. Scripture loses it's authority when it's detached from the authority of the Church. It was through the authority of the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, that the Scriptures came about in the first place. She alone holds the God-given responsibility to interpret His Word. The interpretation of Scripture isn't something to be taken lightly. It's not something that just anyone can presume to do. Martin Luther, after having severed himself from the authority of the Church, took appalling liberties with the Scriptures. He called the Book of James an "epistle of straw" and said that he was "such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist". He also rejected the inspiration of the Book of Revelation:
There are many things objectionable in this book. To my mind it bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character...Everyone may form his own judgement of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it. ~ Martin Luther (Sammtliche Works, 63, 169-170)
This is just an example of what can happen when someone relies on their own personal interpretation. They can "form their own judgement[s]" regardless of the teaching of the Church. One analogy often used is that of the constitution. The founding fathers didn't simply write the constitution and then hand it to everyone saying, "interpret it to the best of your ability". They established a government - a hierarchy - an authority. Otherwise, the United States wouldn't have lasted a month without disintegrating into utter chaos.
No one can rely simply on sola scriptura. In essense, they are really relying on their own interpretation of the Bible - and not the Bible itself. But, God established a Church to be the pillar and foundation of His truth. That Church canonized God's inerrant Word in the Scriptures, and that Church is led by the Spirit into all truth to interpret the Scriptures.
Pax Christi,
~the Catholic apologist
• Post A Comment!
Posted by Anonymous
Posted by Anonymous
Posted by thecatholicapologist
Posted by Anonymous
Posted by Anonymous
Posted by thecatholicapologist
Posted by Anonymous
Posted by Anonymous
Posted by thecatholicapologist
Posted by thecatholicapologist
Comments
Apr. 18, 2007 - Posted by Nerdanel
Posted by Anonymous Do you believe that the extra documents the Catholic Church came up with are part of the Scripturesor, if you prefer, since Scriptures is a vague word, Bible?
But remember:
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book.
- Revelation 22: 18
But remember:
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book.
- Revelation 22: 18
Apr. 20, 2007 - posted by Nerdanel
Posted by Anonymous Check out this link. I do not state my opinion in favor of it or otherwise. Please tell me why this is incorrect. http://www.justforcatholics.org/a54.htm
P.S. Thank you for the answer to the question I asked on your other blog. I certainly agree with you, though I do know that beliefs about on that subject in the Roman Church have changed.
P.S. Thank you for the answer to the question I asked on your other blog. I certainly agree with you, though I do know that beliefs about on that subject in the Roman Church have changed.
Apr. 25, 2007 - In response to Nerdanel's comments:
Posted by thecatholicapologist Nerdanel: I hope that I understand your question correctly. You asked if I believed that the “extra documents” written by the Catholic Church are a part of the Bible. I would say no. The Bible is something distinct from both tradition and magisterium - although they are all three in unity. The Church doesn’t have authority over the Bible - to change it or make it say what it wants it to say. God has inspired certain men to write His word (the Bible), and He inspires certain men today to interpret His word. Pope Benedict XVI doesn’t have the authority to change or make up what is true. He only has the authority to proclaim what has always been true, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
You bring up an interesting point by quoting Revelation 22:18. I hope you don’t mind if I ask you a question. Why do you, unlike Martin Luther, accept the prophecy of the Apocalypse as Scripture (part of the Bible)?
In regards to your second comment, I would like to know how you happen to “know that beliefs on that subject in the Roman Church have changed”. It would be interesting to see your documentation on that.
You also asked me to tell you why I think that the website you linked is incorrect. Let me start with this quotation from the article:
“Well then, would you add human reason and philosophy, as the liberals do? No, because the word of man could never be equal to the word of God.”
First of all, who wrote the Word of God (the Bible)? Men. Was it their own reason and their own philosophy that they depended on? No, it was God’s. The author of this article seems to imply that the Catholic Church relies on its own human reason, when the Church itself doesn’t even make this claim. This is a quote from Fr. John Hardon’s The Catholic Catechism:
“…God, who is absolutely infallible, deigned to bestow on his new people - the Church - a certain shared infallibility…always dependant on the wise providence and anointing of the grace of the Holy Spirit, who leads the Church into all truth until the glorious coming of its Lord.” (ft. Paul VI, Mysterium Ecclesiae, part 2)
The Church is totally dependent on God. It is the Protestants who rely on their own human reason and philosophy to interpret the infallible Scriptures. That is why there are so many contradicting doctrines in Protestantism - because men are relying on their own personal interpretations. This disunity cannot be orchestrated by the Holy Spirit.
As for the article’s section on tradition, the author says that God “definitely [did] not” preserve an oral, unwritten body of truth. I believe he may have possibly forgotten or overlooked these passages of Scripture (on which he claims to be solely dependant):
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or by our epistle. ~ 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. ~ 1 Corinthians 11:2 (NKJV)
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received from us. ~ 2 Thessalonians 3:6
Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Jesus Christ. ~ 2 Timothy 1:13
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. ~ 2 Timothy 2:2
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. ~ 1 Peter 1:25
If Sola Scriptura is so central to Christianity, why isn't it in the Bible? It seems like such an odd contradiction. It simply disproves itself.
Thanks for taking the time to comment on both of my blogs. I apologize for any delay that I might have had in replying to you or that I might have in the future. Schoolwork takes my priority right now, and there is plenty of it to keep me busy! :-)
Pax Christi,
~the Catholic apologist
You bring up an interesting point by quoting Revelation 22:18. I hope you don’t mind if I ask you a question. Why do you, unlike Martin Luther, accept the prophecy of the Apocalypse as Scripture (part of the Bible)?
In regards to your second comment, I would like to know how you happen to “know that beliefs on that subject in the Roman Church have changed”. It would be interesting to see your documentation on that.
You also asked me to tell you why I think that the website you linked is incorrect. Let me start with this quotation from the article:
“Well then, would you add human reason and philosophy, as the liberals do? No, because the word of man could never be equal to the word of God.”
First of all, who wrote the Word of God (the Bible)? Men. Was it their own reason and their own philosophy that they depended on? No, it was God’s. The author of this article seems to imply that the Catholic Church relies on its own human reason, when the Church itself doesn’t even make this claim. This is a quote from Fr. John Hardon’s The Catholic Catechism:
“…God, who is absolutely infallible, deigned to bestow on his new people - the Church - a certain shared infallibility…always dependant on the wise providence and anointing of the grace of the Holy Spirit, who leads the Church into all truth until the glorious coming of its Lord.” (ft. Paul VI, Mysterium Ecclesiae, part 2)
The Church is totally dependent on God. It is the Protestants who rely on their own human reason and philosophy to interpret the infallible Scriptures. That is why there are so many contradicting doctrines in Protestantism - because men are relying on their own personal interpretations. This disunity cannot be orchestrated by the Holy Spirit.
As for the article’s section on tradition, the author says that God “definitely [did] not” preserve an oral, unwritten body of truth. I believe he may have possibly forgotten or overlooked these passages of Scripture (on which he claims to be solely dependant):
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or by our epistle. ~ 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. ~ 1 Corinthians 11:2 (NKJV)
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received from us. ~ 2 Thessalonians 3:6
Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Jesus Christ. ~ 2 Timothy 1:13
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. ~ 2 Timothy 2:2
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. ~ 1 Peter 1:25
If Sola Scriptura is so central to Christianity, why isn't it in the Bible? It seems like such an odd contradiction. It simply disproves itself.
Thanks for taking the time to comment on both of my blogs. I apologize for any delay that I might have had in replying to you or that I might have in the future. Schoolwork takes my priority right now, and there is plenty of it to keep me busy! :-)
Pax Christi,
~the Catholic apologist
Apr. 27, 2007 - posted by Nerdanel
Posted by Anonymous I will be answering you comment shortly. Thanks for taking the time to write out such a detailed response.
Nerdanel
Nerdanel
Apr. 27, 2007 - posted by Nerdanel
Posted by Anonymous Dear Sylvia,
I really appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions. But your answers lead to more questions. I have heard of some of the documents that the Church has added to the Scriptures; (or do they even claim that they are a part of the Scriptures?), and you are correct in saying that they are not part of the Bible. The men who wrote the Bible were divinely inspired. Were the men who wrote the 'extra documentary' divinely inspired as well? And are those documents looked upon as having the same authority as the Bible?
The tradition verses you spoke of, are I think, referring to the new scriptural traditions that Paul gave to the new churches, 'keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you' but I am not sure and I will not venture to state that as fact. But I do not believe that any mortal has the authority to interpret the scriptures and claim their interpretation as utterly correct unless under divine inspiration.
I repeat, that the Protestants almost certainly got their idea of sola scriptura from Revelation 22:18, which brings up another question: what exactly does sola scriptura mean to begin with. I do not believe the Protestants were saying that there may be no religious documents besides the Bible. They were saying that if conflict arose, the Bible should always prevail over other documents and anything that contradicted the Bible should be held as false.
I do not know exactly what you meant here, 'Why do you, unlike Martin Luther, accept the prophecy of the Apocalypse as Scripture (part of the Bible)?' I do not remember speaking of Apocalypse and though I may know what it is, the name is not familiar. If you will explain that I will be able to answer your question.
You are right, as I saw when I was reading it, that the author of that link had some mistakes in his writing. But he did make a good point; what would you add to the Scriptures?
About beliefs in the Catholic Chuch having changed. When I said that, I was reffering to the beliefs about God in the Middle Ages. Around that time the church was under corrupt leaders, and I do not think that many of their 'traditions' are practiced today.
1. The act of the common people having to buy 'forgiveness' from the Bishops and church authorities. I think you will agree with me that this is incorrect.
2. The fact that the Bible was not allowed to be translated into the common tongue used then and remained in Latin, a language that was only understood by aristocrats. You can hardly follow God's word if you cannot read it. The Church did this because they wished to interpret the Scriptures to their own advangtage. When people, (such as William Tyndale,) tried to translate the Bible into English, the church violently opposed them, persecuting and killing them.
3. It is well known that people in the Middle Ages had no intimate relationship with God. It is also popularly stated that this was because of the Church's influence. If people had a God that they could intimately trust and believe in as a friend, then a number of things would happen that could lead to revolts. (People wanting the Bible translated,(though that happened anwyay,) and questioning the numerous, confining rules that were in practice.) In those times the Fear of God was very well hammered into the peoples' hearts, but not the Love of God. (I know that things have changed now, as I said in my previous comment.)
Now, back to Martin Luther. Do you believe that he was right in rebelling against the Church; in light of the errors I have mentioned? I do not say that he was perfect, but I do believe that the fellowship he created was better than the present Catholic Church at the time.
Sincerely, Nerdanel
P.S. I am really getting to enjoy our theology conversations.
P.P.S. Do you know the origin of the word Catholic? It actually means union, unity, oneness; a name given to it because it was originally the only church. It is regrettable that there are now so many different, hostile, denominations.
I really appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions. But your answers lead to more questions. I have heard of some of the documents that the Church has added to the Scriptures; (or do they even claim that they are a part of the Scriptures?), and you are correct in saying that they are not part of the Bible. The men who wrote the Bible were divinely inspired. Were the men who wrote the 'extra documentary' divinely inspired as well? And are those documents looked upon as having the same authority as the Bible?
The tradition verses you spoke of, are I think, referring to the new scriptural traditions that Paul gave to the new churches, 'keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you' but I am not sure and I will not venture to state that as fact. But I do not believe that any mortal has the authority to interpret the scriptures and claim their interpretation as utterly correct unless under divine inspiration.
I repeat, that the Protestants almost certainly got their idea of sola scriptura from Revelation 22:18, which brings up another question: what exactly does sola scriptura mean to begin with. I do not believe the Protestants were saying that there may be no religious documents besides the Bible. They were saying that if conflict arose, the Bible should always prevail over other documents and anything that contradicted the Bible should be held as false.
I do not know exactly what you meant here, 'Why do you, unlike Martin Luther, accept the prophecy of the Apocalypse as Scripture (part of the Bible)?' I do not remember speaking of Apocalypse and though I may know what it is, the name is not familiar. If you will explain that I will be able to answer your question.
You are right, as I saw when I was reading it, that the author of that link had some mistakes in his writing. But he did make a good point; what would you add to the Scriptures?
About beliefs in the Catholic Chuch having changed. When I said that, I was reffering to the beliefs about God in the Middle Ages. Around that time the church was under corrupt leaders, and I do not think that many of their 'traditions' are practiced today.
1. The act of the common people having to buy 'forgiveness' from the Bishops and church authorities. I think you will agree with me that this is incorrect.
2. The fact that the Bible was not allowed to be translated into the common tongue used then and remained in Latin, a language that was only understood by aristocrats. You can hardly follow God's word if you cannot read it. The Church did this because they wished to interpret the Scriptures to their own advangtage. When people, (such as William Tyndale,) tried to translate the Bible into English, the church violently opposed them, persecuting and killing them.
3. It is well known that people in the Middle Ages had no intimate relationship with God. It is also popularly stated that this was because of the Church's influence. If people had a God that they could intimately trust and believe in as a friend, then a number of things would happen that could lead to revolts. (People wanting the Bible translated,(though that happened anwyay,) and questioning the numerous, confining rules that were in practice.) In those times the Fear of God was very well hammered into the peoples' hearts, but not the Love of God. (I know that things have changed now, as I said in my previous comment.)
Now, back to Martin Luther. Do you believe that he was right in rebelling against the Church; in light of the errors I have mentioned? I do not say that he was perfect, but I do believe that the fellowship he created was better than the present Catholic Church at the time.
Sincerely, Nerdanel
P.S. I am really getting to enjoy our theology conversations.
P.P.S. Do you know the origin of the word Catholic? It actually means union, unity, oneness; a name given to it because it was originally the only church. It is regrettable that there are now so many different, hostile, denominations.
May. 12, 2007 - In response to Nerdanel:
Posted by thecatholicapologist Nerdanel,
I’ll start with your comment on Revelation 22:18. You said that you think Protestants almost surely got their idea for Sola Scriptura from that verse. Well, that really doesn’t make sense to me. First of all, the verse is only talking about the Book of Revelation. It doesn’t say, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy…” and list the entire canon. It simply says “this book”. And even then, there are probably hundreds of books all over the world that claim to be divinely inspired. As St. Augustine said:
“But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.”
The Catholic Church canonized the Scriptures. If I did not believe in the authority of the Church, I would not believe in the authority of the Scriptures.
Protestants may ask, “Why would you add anything to the Bible? We don’t need anything else.” I would agree that we don’t need anything else. If I were on a deserted island, and all I had was the Bible - that would be sufficient enough to lead me to heaven. But, the Word of God isn’t confined in just the Bible. The Word of God is infinite.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ~ John 1:1
We know that Christ is truth (Jn 14:6), and we know that He has given us His truth in places other than the Bible.
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. ~ John 21:25
Jesus spend countless hours teaching His apostles. They obviously didn’t write didn’t everything that He taught them. So, what happened to all the truth that Jesus gave to them? Why would He spend so much time teaching them? Well, they taught their own students. And those students (Polycarp, Papias, Clement…) taught their students (Irenaeus, Justin Martyr…), who’s writings we still have today. (I’m not saying that the early Church father’s writings are infallible, or divinely inspired as the Scriptures, but they contain truth. God guides the Church to determine what is true. This is “sacred tradition.”)
The Bible is the Word of God, but the entire Word of God is not the Bible. Why would we want to settle for less than what we can have?
In the Catholic Church, there are 3 “legs of the stool”, so to speak. They are: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. None of the 3 are more authoritative than the others. If there’s a question about something, one won’t rule over the other. They must all be in unity.
Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”. If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “Open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.” [cf. Lk 24:25] ~ CCC #108
If you want to read some of the official teachings of the Church from the Catechism on the subject of the Scriptures, you can visit http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm. There’s a lot of good stuff there.
I’m going to address your points about teaching in the Catholic Church that have supposedly “changed” in the order that you numbered them:
1. Yes, I agree. The act of selling and buying “forgiveness” is a defined heresy of the Church called simony. That hasn’t changed. I could go into detail about this, but I’ll leave it at that and if you’d like me to get into all the history, I’ll gladly do so.
2. The common people in the Middle Ages couldn’t read any language, neither Latin nor their mother tongue. But, the Church didn’t leave people in the dark about the Bible. Look at the cathedrals and churches from that time in history. The windows, pictures, statues, walls, ceilings, everything told the story of the Gospel!! The reason that people such as Tyndale were persecuted was because they tried to translate the Scriptures without authorization of the Church. Not only that, but they were preaching heresies. Why would the Church let heretics translate the most sacred book on the earth? The Church leaders were afraid that there would be errors in translation, and people who read them would be deceived. Take Martin Luther’s German translation for example. Scholars have gone through it and found more than a thousand translation errors. What would have happened if copies of this had landed in the hands of the common people? The result would have been disastrous. A good source on this topic is a book called Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church by Henry Graham. If you’d like to read it you can visit here: http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/graham_contents.html.
3. Simply because many people did not have intimate relationships with God doesn’t mean that it was not the Church’s teaching. There was a high death rate in the Middle Ages because of the plague, and priests died by the hundreds because of their frequent contact with the sick. This resulted in a huge shortage of priests, which resulted in many men entering into the priesthood who should not have. There wasn’t satisfactory teaching of the clergy, much less so of the lay people. This is also why there were so many heresies (such as simony) becoming widespread during that time. You said that it is well known that people in the Middle Ages had no intimate relationship with God. Well, despite what I just mentioned, there were still faithful Christians in the Catholic Church. Take St. Didacus for example, or Bl. Ferdinand, Bl. James Grissinger, Bl. Angelo Carletti, and many others. There were people in the Middle Ages who had an alive faith in Jesus Christ, even if it does seem that they were uncommon.
I think that covers all of your questions except the one about Martin Luther. I’ll try to keep my reply short. ;-) I think that Luther was right in wanting to do something about the corruption in the Church, but he took it too far. He believed that the entire Church was corrupt, even though it wasn’t the Church, but the people in the Church who were causing the problems.
Oh yes, and I’m sorry about the confusion about “the Apocalypse”. It’s simply another word for the Book of Revelation. :-)
Thanks for taking the time for this discussion! I’m enjoying it myself. I’m sorry that it takes me so much time to get back to you. I am really looking forward to the end of the school year when I’ll have more time to keep this blog updated!!
Pax Christi,
~the Catholic apologist
PS I agree completely with your last remark. ;-)
I’ll start with your comment on Revelation 22:18. You said that you think Protestants almost surely got their idea for Sola Scriptura from that verse. Well, that really doesn’t make sense to me. First of all, the verse is only talking about the Book of Revelation. It doesn’t say, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy…” and list the entire canon. It simply says “this book”. And even then, there are probably hundreds of books all over the world that claim to be divinely inspired. As St. Augustine said:
“But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.”
The Catholic Church canonized the Scriptures. If I did not believe in the authority of the Church, I would not believe in the authority of the Scriptures.
Protestants may ask, “Why would you add anything to the Bible? We don’t need anything else.” I would agree that we don’t need anything else. If I were on a deserted island, and all I had was the Bible - that would be sufficient enough to lead me to heaven. But, the Word of God isn’t confined in just the Bible. The Word of God is infinite.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ~ John 1:1
We know that Christ is truth (Jn 14:6), and we know that He has given us His truth in places other than the Bible.
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. ~ John 21:25
Jesus spend countless hours teaching His apostles. They obviously didn’t write didn’t everything that He taught them. So, what happened to all the truth that Jesus gave to them? Why would He spend so much time teaching them? Well, they taught their own students. And those students (Polycarp, Papias, Clement…) taught their students (Irenaeus, Justin Martyr…), who’s writings we still have today. (I’m not saying that the early Church father’s writings are infallible, or divinely inspired as the Scriptures, but they contain truth. God guides the Church to determine what is true. This is “sacred tradition.”)
The Bible is the Word of God, but the entire Word of God is not the Bible. Why would we want to settle for less than what we can have?
In the Catholic Church, there are 3 “legs of the stool”, so to speak. They are: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. None of the 3 are more authoritative than the others. If there’s a question about something, one won’t rule over the other. They must all be in unity.
Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”. If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “Open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.” [cf. Lk 24:25] ~ CCC #108
If you want to read some of the official teachings of the Church from the Catechism on the subject of the Scriptures, you can visit http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm. There’s a lot of good stuff there.
I’m going to address your points about teaching in the Catholic Church that have supposedly “changed” in the order that you numbered them:
1. Yes, I agree. The act of selling and buying “forgiveness” is a defined heresy of the Church called simony. That hasn’t changed. I could go into detail about this, but I’ll leave it at that and if you’d like me to get into all the history, I’ll gladly do so.
2. The common people in the Middle Ages couldn’t read any language, neither Latin nor their mother tongue. But, the Church didn’t leave people in the dark about the Bible. Look at the cathedrals and churches from that time in history. The windows, pictures, statues, walls, ceilings, everything told the story of the Gospel!! The reason that people such as Tyndale were persecuted was because they tried to translate the Scriptures without authorization of the Church. Not only that, but they were preaching heresies. Why would the Church let heretics translate the most sacred book on the earth? The Church leaders were afraid that there would be errors in translation, and people who read them would be deceived. Take Martin Luther’s German translation for example. Scholars have gone through it and found more than a thousand translation errors. What would have happened if copies of this had landed in the hands of the common people? The result would have been disastrous. A good source on this topic is a book called Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church by Henry Graham. If you’d like to read it you can visit here: http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/graham_contents.html.
3. Simply because many people did not have intimate relationships with God doesn’t mean that it was not the Church’s teaching. There was a high death rate in the Middle Ages because of the plague, and priests died by the hundreds because of their frequent contact with the sick. This resulted in a huge shortage of priests, which resulted in many men entering into the priesthood who should not have. There wasn’t satisfactory teaching of the clergy, much less so of the lay people. This is also why there were so many heresies (such as simony) becoming widespread during that time. You said that it is well known that people in the Middle Ages had no intimate relationship with God. Well, despite what I just mentioned, there were still faithful Christians in the Catholic Church. Take St. Didacus for example, or Bl. Ferdinand, Bl. James Grissinger, Bl. Angelo Carletti, and many others. There were people in the Middle Ages who had an alive faith in Jesus Christ, even if it does seem that they were uncommon.
I think that covers all of your questions except the one about Martin Luther. I’ll try to keep my reply short. ;-) I think that Luther was right in wanting to do something about the corruption in the Church, but he took it too far. He believed that the entire Church was corrupt, even though it wasn’t the Church, but the people in the Church who were causing the problems.
Oh yes, and I’m sorry about the confusion about “the Apocalypse”. It’s simply another word for the Book of Revelation. :-)
Thanks for taking the time for this discussion! I’m enjoying it myself. I’m sorry that it takes me so much time to get back to you. I am really looking forward to the end of the school year when I’ll have more time to keep this blog updated!!
Pax Christi,
~the Catholic apologist
PS I agree completely with your last remark. ;-)
May. 29, 2007 - Posted by Nerdanel
Posted by Anonymous Dear Sylvia,
Don't worry about not replying to me soon enough. I know you are busy. I have a fair amount of free-time and I just check your blog every once in a while.
Now, this could get a little sensitive, but I have found out that you are not easily offended, and I am sure you know that this is not meant to be offensive.
We could just list this into points for our convenience.
1. Sola Scriptura
a) The Church may be divinely inspired in some instances, for example, I think the leaders of the Church were probably divinely inspired when they chose the books of the Bible. I think it is also possible that they went too far with some things. Such as the “ ‘extra documents” written by the Catholic Church.’ But the Church is directed by men who have, 'fallen short of the glory of God.' These men, (yes, including popes, cardinals, priests etc.) are not perfect, and many are corrupt. Let us give an example. (As this subject also includes your statements, 'I’m not saying that the early Church father’s writings are infallible, or divinely inspired as the Scriptures...' and 'In the Catholic Church, there are 3 “legs of the stool”, so to speak. They are: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. None of the 3 are more authoritative than the others. If there’s a question about something, one won’t rule over the other. They must all be in unity...’ I have mentioned those statements that I wish to refer to before continuing.)
b) A conflict arises between the Church and the Scriptures. Maybe not even a conflict. Maybe just a question. Maybe they both state different arguments. Maybe they appear to contradict each other. Who should over rule? Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, or 'divinely inspired' Magisterium. You say that neither of the three can overrule the others.
c) Sacred Tradition. Tradition can be very misleading. Tradition is not holy. Because it is tradition to kiss the Pope's ring, does not mean that that act is Holy, does it? No. The word 'Sacred' can be interpreted differently and I will not go into that now. Neither do I say that tradition is not sacred. But tradition is not holy. I think you will agree with me.
Lets sum it all up in one question: Do you believe there is any other book on earth that has the same authority as the Bible? (Catechism, etc.) I do not. Why? Because the Bible is the Word of God. God does not say that His word is anywhere else, but he does say that the Bible is his Word. The verse mentioned in Revelation 22 is vague. But it does not specifically say that only the book of Revelation may not be changed. The Bible is considered a book by many, and most people think that that verse spoke of
the Bible as a whole. Why would it only mean that of Revelation? Do you believe that other parts of the Bible can be altered? I do not. Why would God allow man, corrupt
as he is, to alter His Word? What would you add to the Scriptures anyway? As this is also related to the subject I will bring it up under this topic. You said, 'If I did not believe in the authority of the Church, I would not believe in the authority of the Scriptures.' Protestants do not believe in the authority of the Church; (by the way, I am not a Protestant,) are they therefore wrong in believing in the authority of the Scriptures? Certainly you do not think so. The authority of the Church is NOT equal to the authority of the Bible. Why? Because, as I mentioned, the Bible is THE Word of God. Nowhere else, no other document can claim to be titled as the Word of God. So, if the Bible is the Word and the sole Word of God, than it has more authority over the Church which is run by men.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1
Unless you utterly deny the truth of this verse than Scriptures are above Tradition and the authority of the Church. Why? Because, according to this verse, the Word, that was in existence even in the beginning, was in being before both the Church and Tradition and,
The word of the Lord is flawless. 2Sam. 22:31
Tradition is not flawless.
‘Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders?” … Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?” – Mt. 15: 2 – 3
‘Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.’ Mt. 15:6
‘See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.’ Col. 2:8
These verses certainly place Scriptures, the Word of God, above Tradition. Another thing. The Church did NOT canonize, sanctify, or consecrate the Scriptures. The Bible is God’s Word. The Bible is the Scriptures. God was the inspiration behind the Scriptures, and He caused them to be written. He certainly did not need the Church to canonize them for Him. He is utterly powerful and utterly holy. That fact alone is enough to make the Scriptures sacred above all else.
2. Martin Luther, the Early Church, and the Apocalypse
a) Simony. You said, ‘Yes, I agree. The act of selling and buying “forgiveness” is a defined heresy of the Church called simony. That hasn’t changed.’ I am sorry, but I am not quite sure what you meant. In saying that that hasn’t changed do you mean that that practice still continues? And do you think it is acceptable. I take it, as you called it heresy, that you do not. Correct?
b) Bible translation. You said, ‘The common people in the Middle Ages couldn’t read any language, neither Latin nor their mother tongue.’ I am afraid this is incorrect. While great parts of the common people were illiterate, there were, among that vast population, a large number who could read their mother tongue. But even that is beside the point. The priests could easily have read the Bible, translated in the common language of the people, aloud in the cathedrals and churches. They read the Bible aloud in Latin, even though the people could not understand it. The Church wouldn’t translate the Bible is the point.
c) Tyndale. You said that, ‘people such as Tyndale were persecuted was because they tried to translate the Scriptures without authorization of the Church. Not only that, but they were preaching heresies. Why would the Church let heretics translate the most sacred book on the earth? What were the heresies that Tyndale was preaching, may I ask? And how does the Church ‘define’ heresies. And there we come back to the Church. The Church thought that no one could translate the scriptures without their authorization. Tyndale and his followers translated the Bible because the Church refused to do so. They were not experts, and the Word of God with some grammatical errors in it is better than Scriptures that could not be understood. Tyndale and his followers succeeded in translating the Bible, and if it were not for them, who knows but we might be reading the Bible in Latin to this day.
As translating the Bible has to do with intimate relationships with God, I will include this here. I understand that there were some people, including those you have listed who read the Bible and understood it and had true relationships with Christ. But you yourself said that they were uncommon. I spoke of the common people who couldn’t read the Bible, because they couldn’t read Latin.
d) Martin Luther. You said that he took it too far and it was the people of the Church who were corrupt, not the Church. I believe that the Church is pretty much made up of the people who are in power. They were corrupt; therefore, the Church had become corrupt. Martin Luther left the Church because he could not reform it. I believe he was utterly right in doing so. Now, maybe the entire Church was not like that, and I know that there were a number of people involved who were faithful. But that is not enough to make a difference.
e) Apocalypse. I have not heard of Martin Luther denying this as part of the Bible. If that is so, than I disagree with him. God would not have allowed the book of Revelation to be included in the Bible, if he had not meant for it to be there.
I think that is about all we mentioned. I will look at those links; I have already been to the one on Catholic catechism, but thanks for sending them.
There are a few other things I wish to discuss as well.
I find it interesting, that, in a previous comment you said that you don’t think it is Biblical that ‘every denomination’s is going to have its flaws.’ What is so unbiblical about that? Just because Christ said that he would be with us, doesn’t mean that we will not have flaws. ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. It is correct that this verse is most probably speaking of individuals, but the ‘denominations’ mentioned are made of individuals. Every ‘denomination’ is going to have flaws. And you have to face it, even though splits and different religious groups are unbiblical, they do exist and they are going to have their flaws. Do you believe the Catholic ‘denomination’ is perfect? Because, yes, the Church must be considered as a denomination among the others, because that is what it is, even if it did not start out that way.
Also, I read your post on totustuus at your other blog. I cannot send you a private message since I don't have an account, but I guess a comment will be just as well. I appreciate your taking the time to answer my question, but I did not understand in your post why we should seek Christ through Mary, a mortal. Mary was a virtuous maid of the line of David, which is, I believe, why God chose her to bring his Son into the world. But she was a mortal and she was not perfect. It is written that we should seek God through Christ, God's Son. Christ came to us because we were unworthy to face God. This does not mean that Christ is inferior to God, they are both one, but "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father but through me." John 14:6 He is the word of God, he intercedes for us; we come to the Father through Him. He has made a way for us. It is entirely unnecessary to use Mary in that way. Mary is not the savior. Mary does not have equal power with Christ. We do not know if she has any divine power at all. Which brings up another questionable Catholic practice. I have heard (from more than one source) that Catholics speakpray to the Saints. Is this true? If so, what are your (representing the Church) reasons for doing so? And do you personally practice this? Why should we pray to the Saints, when it is more than sufficient to pray to God, and God ALONE? I know that you may disagree with what I am about to say, but it seems to foreigners and strangers unacquainted with Catholic ways, that you idolize the Saints. What is your opinion on this?
And another thing, isn’t it true that the Pope is referred to as the Holy Father? This is strictly contradictory to the Bible.
And do not call anyone on earth father, for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Mt. 23: 9
Sincerely,
Nerdanel
Don't worry about not replying to me soon enough. I know you are busy. I have a fair amount of free-time and I just check your blog every once in a while.
Now, this could get a little sensitive, but I have found out that you are not easily offended, and I am sure you know that this is not meant to be offensive.
We could just list this into points for our convenience.
1. Sola Scriptura
a) The Church may be divinely inspired in some instances, for example, I think the leaders of the Church were probably divinely inspired when they chose the books of the Bible. I think it is also possible that they went too far with some things. Such as the “ ‘extra documents” written by the Catholic Church.’ But the Church is directed by men who have, 'fallen short of the glory of God.' These men, (yes, including popes, cardinals, priests etc.) are not perfect, and many are corrupt. Let us give an example. (As this subject also includes your statements, 'I’m not saying that the early Church father’s writings are infallible, or divinely inspired as the Scriptures...' and 'In the Catholic Church, there are 3 “legs of the stool”, so to speak. They are: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. None of the 3 are more authoritative than the others. If there’s a question about something, one won’t rule over the other. They must all be in unity...’ I have mentioned those statements that I wish to refer to before continuing.)
b) A conflict arises between the Church and the Scriptures. Maybe not even a conflict. Maybe just a question. Maybe they both state different arguments. Maybe they appear to contradict each other. Who should over rule? Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, or 'divinely inspired' Magisterium. You say that neither of the three can overrule the others.
c) Sacred Tradition. Tradition can be very misleading. Tradition is not holy. Because it is tradition to kiss the Pope's ring, does not mean that that act is Holy, does it? No. The word 'Sacred' can be interpreted differently and I will not go into that now. Neither do I say that tradition is not sacred. But tradition is not holy. I think you will agree with me.
Lets sum it all up in one question: Do you believe there is any other book on earth that has the same authority as the Bible? (Catechism, etc.) I do not. Why? Because the Bible is the Word of God. God does not say that His word is anywhere else, but he does say that the Bible is his Word. The verse mentioned in Revelation 22 is vague. But it does not specifically say that only the book of Revelation may not be changed. The Bible is considered a book by many, and most people think that that verse spoke of
the Bible as a whole. Why would it only mean that of Revelation? Do you believe that other parts of the Bible can be altered? I do not. Why would God allow man, corrupt
as he is, to alter His Word? What would you add to the Scriptures anyway? As this is also related to the subject I will bring it up under this topic. You said, 'If I did not believe in the authority of the Church, I would not believe in the authority of the Scriptures.' Protestants do not believe in the authority of the Church; (by the way, I am not a Protestant,) are they therefore wrong in believing in the authority of the Scriptures? Certainly you do not think so. The authority of the Church is NOT equal to the authority of the Bible. Why? Because, as I mentioned, the Bible is THE Word of God. Nowhere else, no other document can claim to be titled as the Word of God. So, if the Bible is the Word and the sole Word of God, than it has more authority over the Church which is run by men.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1
Unless you utterly deny the truth of this verse than Scriptures are above Tradition and the authority of the Church. Why? Because, according to this verse, the Word, that was in existence even in the beginning, was in being before both the Church and Tradition and,
The word of the Lord is flawless. 2Sam. 22:31
Tradition is not flawless.
‘Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders?” … Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?” – Mt. 15: 2 – 3
‘Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.’ Mt. 15:6
‘See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.’ Col. 2:8
These verses certainly place Scriptures, the Word of God, above Tradition. Another thing. The Church did NOT canonize, sanctify, or consecrate the Scriptures. The Bible is God’s Word. The Bible is the Scriptures. God was the inspiration behind the Scriptures, and He caused them to be written. He certainly did not need the Church to canonize them for Him. He is utterly powerful and utterly holy. That fact alone is enough to make the Scriptures sacred above all else.
2. Martin Luther, the Early Church, and the Apocalypse
a) Simony. You said, ‘Yes, I agree. The act of selling and buying “forgiveness” is a defined heresy of the Church called simony. That hasn’t changed.’ I am sorry, but I am not quite sure what you meant. In saying that that hasn’t changed do you mean that that practice still continues? And do you think it is acceptable. I take it, as you called it heresy, that you do not. Correct?
b) Bible translation. You said, ‘The common people in the Middle Ages couldn’t read any language, neither Latin nor their mother tongue.’ I am afraid this is incorrect. While great parts of the common people were illiterate, there were, among that vast population, a large number who could read their mother tongue. But even that is beside the point. The priests could easily have read the Bible, translated in the common language of the people, aloud in the cathedrals and churches. They read the Bible aloud in Latin, even though the people could not understand it. The Church wouldn’t translate the Bible is the point.
c) Tyndale. You said that, ‘people such as Tyndale were persecuted was because they tried to translate the Scriptures without authorization of the Church. Not only that, but they were preaching heresies. Why would the Church let heretics translate the most sacred book on the earth? What were the heresies that Tyndale was preaching, may I ask? And how does the Church ‘define’ heresies. And there we come back to the Church. The Church thought that no one could translate the scriptures without their authorization. Tyndale and his followers translated the Bible because the Church refused to do so. They were not experts, and the Word of God with some grammatical errors in it is better than Scriptures that could not be understood. Tyndale and his followers succeeded in translating the Bible, and if it were not for them, who knows but we might be reading the Bible in Latin to this day.
As translating the Bible has to do with intimate relationships with God, I will include this here. I understand that there were some people, including those you have listed who read the Bible and understood it and had true relationships with Christ. But you yourself said that they were uncommon. I spoke of the common people who couldn’t read the Bible, because they couldn’t read Latin.
d) Martin Luther. You said that he took it too far and it was the people of the Church who were corrupt, not the Church. I believe that the Church is pretty much made up of the people who are in power. They were corrupt; therefore, the Church had become corrupt. Martin Luther left the Church because he could not reform it. I believe he was utterly right in doing so. Now, maybe the entire Church was not like that, and I know that there were a number of people involved who were faithful. But that is not enough to make a difference.
e) Apocalypse. I have not heard of Martin Luther denying this as part of the Bible. If that is so, than I disagree with him. God would not have allowed the book of Revelation to be included in the Bible, if he had not meant for it to be there.
I think that is about all we mentioned. I will look at those links; I have already been to the one on Catholic catechism, but thanks for sending them.
There are a few other things I wish to discuss as well.
I find it interesting, that, in a previous comment you said that you don’t think it is Biblical that ‘every denomination’s is going to have its flaws.’ What is so unbiblical about that? Just because Christ said that he would be with us, doesn’t mean that we will not have flaws. ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. It is correct that this verse is most probably speaking of individuals, but the ‘denominations’ mentioned are made of individuals. Every ‘denomination’ is going to have flaws. And you have to face it, even though splits and different religious groups are unbiblical, they do exist and they are going to have their flaws. Do you believe the Catholic ‘denomination’ is perfect? Because, yes, the Church must be considered as a denomination among the others, because that is what it is, even if it did not start out that way.
Also, I read your post on totustuus at your other blog. I cannot send you a private message since I don't have an account, but I guess a comment will be just as well. I appreciate your taking the time to answer my question, but I did not understand in your post why we should seek Christ through Mary, a mortal. Mary was a virtuous maid of the line of David, which is, I believe, why God chose her to bring his Son into the world. But she was a mortal and she was not perfect. It is written that we should seek God through Christ, God's Son. Christ came to us because we were unworthy to face God. This does not mean that Christ is inferior to God, they are both one, but "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father but through me." John 14:6 He is the word of God, he intercedes for us; we come to the Father through Him. He has made a way for us. It is entirely unnecessary to use Mary in that way. Mary is not the savior. Mary does not have equal power with Christ. We do not know if she has any divine power at all. Which brings up another questionable Catholic practice. I have heard (from more than one source) that Catholics speakpray to the Saints. Is this true? If so, what are your (representing the Church) reasons for doing so? And do you personally practice this? Why should we pray to the Saints, when it is more than sufficient to pray to God, and God ALONE? I know that you may disagree with what I am about to say, but it seems to foreigners and strangers unacquainted with Catholic ways, that you idolize the Saints. What is your opinion on this?
And another thing, isn’t it true that the Pope is referred to as the Holy Father? This is strictly contradictory to the Bible.
And do not call anyone on earth father, for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Mt. 23: 9
Sincerely,
Nerdanel
Jun. 4, 2007 - curious
Posted by Anonymous what happened to the catholicapologist?
Jul. 6, 2007 - First response to Nerdanel's comment:
Posted by thecatholicapologist Nerdanel,
Thanks for breaking all of that up into points! It was all starting to get sort of muddled…
I hope that you don’t mind if I break apart my reply into a couple of comments. Your comment was 3 pages long, so it is taking me quite a while to reply to all of it. ;-)
1. Sola Scriptura
a) You said that you believed that the leaders of the Church were divinely inspired when they decided on which books to include in the canon. It makes no sense to me that God would choose to inspire them once and then leave it at that. He preserved them from error while canonizing the Scriptures. Why would He not preserve them from error in other areas? I don’t think you can pick and choose which doctrines of the Church are divinely inspired.
b) The questions is not about which of the three are more authoritative. One truth is not more authoritative than another truth. They are both true.
There were many questions that arose in the beginning of the Church. If you go back and read some history about the Church councils, there was no shortage of heretics who thought that the Bible meant something other than it really did. The Scriptures are not clear on all points. One example would be the God/man nature of Jesus Christ. How many conflicts arose from those arguments? Each side had their own Scriptures and proofs that seemed to support their beliefs. But, in order to clear the confusion, the Church had to make an authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures - saying that Jesus was fully God and fully man. There was no conflict between the teaching of the Church and the Scriptures, but there was conflict with the heretics and their interpretation of the Scriptures.
c) Tradition can certainly be holy if it is God’s tradition. The act of kissing the pope’s ring isn’t included in Sacred Tradition. Neither is the fact that altar servers are supposed to wear black dress shoes. There is a difference between general tradition and actual Tradition (with a capital T).
~~~~~
Nerdanel wrote: “…the Bible is the Word of God. God does not say that His word is anywhere else, but he does say that the Bible is his Word. The verse mentioned in Revelation 22 is vague. But it does not specifically say that only the book of Revelation may not be changed. The Bible is considered a book by many, and most people think that that verse spoke of the Bible as a whole. Why would it only mean that of Revelation?”
~~~~~
The reason that the Bible is “considered a book by many” is because it was made into a complete book by the Catholic Church. Otherwise, it would simply be a whole bunch of scattered documents.
The reason that the verse in Revelation would only be referring to the Book of Revelation is because it was written as a totally separate document. John didn’t have the rest of the Bible when he was on the Island of Patmos. He most likely didn’t even know that half of Paul’s epistles existed. You could even say that by adding on the rest of the Scriptures, you’d be adding to the prophecy of Revelation talked about in the verse!! But, we know that it is God’s Word because the He has given it to us through the Catholic Church. The real question would be: “Why would the verse be talking about more than the Book of Revelation?”
The Qu’ran claims divine inspiration. The Book of Philemon does not. Which one is really divinely inspired? Where does God clearly say that Philemon is His Word? He doesn’t, except in the Catholic Church.
~~~~~
Nerdanel wrote: God was the inspiration behind the Scriptures, and He caused them to be written. He certainly did not need the Church to canonize them for Him.
~~~~~
As you said, God is all powerful. He can do anything, so He could have canonized them in a different way. But, why would He choose to use the Catholic Church if it were not HIS Church?
~~~~~
Nerdanel wrote: “Protestants do not believe in the authority of the Church…are they therefore wrong in believing in the authority of the Scriptures?”
~~~~~
No, they are certainly not wrong in believe in the truth of the authority of the Scriptures. But, if they deny the authority of the Church, they have no logical reason to believe in the Scriptures as divinely inspired. They are cutting of the limb that they’re sitting on, so to speak.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ~ John 1:1
The Word of God reffered to in this verse is not the Bible. It’s JESUS. JESUS is the living Word of God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. ~ John 1:14
I will be replying to the second part of your comment as soon as I can. :-)
Thanks again!!
Pax Christi,
~the Catholic apologist
Thanks for breaking all of that up into points! It was all starting to get sort of muddled…
I hope that you don’t mind if I break apart my reply into a couple of comments. Your comment was 3 pages long, so it is taking me quite a while to reply to all of it. ;-)
1. Sola Scriptura
a) You said that you believed that the leaders of the Church were divinely inspired when they decided on which books to include in the canon. It makes no sense to me that God would choose to inspire them once and then leave it at that. He preserved them from error while canonizing the Scriptures. Why would He not preserve them from error in other areas? I don’t think you can pick and choose which doctrines of the Church are divinely inspired.
b) The questions is not about which of the three are more authoritative. One truth is not more authoritative than another truth. They are both true.
There were many questions that arose in the beginning of the Church. If you go back and read some history about the Church councils, there was no shortage of heretics who thought that the Bible meant something other than it really did. The Scriptures are not clear on all points. One example would be the God/man nature of Jesus Christ. How many conflicts arose from those arguments? Each side had their own Scriptures and proofs that seemed to support their beliefs. But, in order to clear the confusion, the Church had to make an authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures - saying that Jesus was fully God and fully man. There was no conflict between the teaching of the Church and the Scriptures, but there was conflict with the heretics and their interpretation of the Scriptures.
c) Tradition can certainly be holy if it is God’s tradition. The act of kissing the pope’s ring isn’t included in Sacred Tradition. Neither is the fact that altar servers are supposed to wear black dress shoes. There is a difference between general tradition and actual Tradition (with a capital T).
~~~~~
Nerdanel wrote: “…the Bible is the Word of God. God does not say that His word is anywhere else, but he does say that the Bible is his Word. The verse mentioned in Revelation 22 is vague. But it does not specifically say that only the book of Revelation may not be changed. The Bible is considered a book by many, and most people think that that verse spoke of the Bible as a whole. Why would it only mean that of Revelation?”
~~~~~
The reason that the Bible is “considered a book by many” is because it was made into a complete book by the Catholic Church. Otherwise, it would simply be a whole bunch of scattered documents.
The reason that the verse in Revelation would only be referring to the Book of Revelation is because it was written as a totally separate document. John didn’t have the rest of the Bible when he was on the Island of Patmos. He most likely didn’t even know that half of Paul’s epistles existed. You could even say that by adding on the rest of the Scriptures, you’d be adding to the prophecy of Revelation talked about in the verse!! But, we know that it is God’s Word because the He has given it to us through the Catholic Church. The real question would be: “Why would the verse be talking about more than the Book of Revelation?”
The Qu’ran claims divine inspiration. The Book of Philemon does not. Which one is really divinely inspired? Where does God clearly say that Philemon is His Word? He doesn’t, except in the Catholic Church.
~~~~~
Nerdanel wrote: God was the inspiration behind the Scriptures, and He caused them to be written. He certainly did not need the Church to canonize them for Him.
~~~~~
As you said, God is all powerful. He can do anything, so He could have canonized them in a different way. But, why would He choose to use the Catholic Church if it were not HIS Church?
~~~~~
Nerdanel wrote: “Protestants do not believe in the authority of the Church…are they therefore wrong in believing in the authority of the Scriptures?”
~~~~~
No, they are certainly not wrong in believe in the truth of the authority of the Scriptures. But, if they deny the authority of the Church, they have no logical reason to believe in the Scriptures as divinely inspired. They are cutting of the limb that they’re sitting on, so to speak.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ~ John 1:1
The Word of God reffered to in this verse is not the Bible. It’s JESUS. JESUS is the living Word of God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. ~ John 1:14
I will be replying to the second part of your comment as soon as I can. :-)
Thanks again!!
Pax Christi,
~the Catholic apologist
Aug. 6, 2007 - Second response to Nerdanel's comment:
Posted by thecatholicapologist Hello again Nerdanel, and thanks for your patience in waiting for my second reply! There are quite a lot of bases to cover, here. :-)
2. Martin Luther, the early Church, and the Apocalypse
a) Simony. What I meant by “that hasn’t changed” is that the fact that simony is a heresy hasn’t changed. I’m sure that it still happens today, but it was more widespread during that time. And, seeing as it is a defined heresy, yes, I think that it is unacceptable.
b) You seem to be of the opinion that the Church refused to translate the Bible or to even attempt to communicate it to the common people in their mother tongues. Remember that though the Mass and the Scripture readings were in Latin, the homily (sermon) was not always so. The reason it existed in the first place was so that the pastor could explain to the people what the Scriptures meant. The people were not so ignorant of the Scriptures as you may think. They had it painted on their walls and windows, carved into their buildings, artistically portrayed in nearly every manner imaginable. They would have to be deaf and blind to not know the Gospel: that Christ died for their salvation, was buried and rose again. Simply because they didn’t hold a Bible in their hands doesn’t mean that they couldn’t have a personal relationship with God. No Christian had the Bible for the first 300 years of the Church.
After doing a little bit of research, I’ve found that there actually were translation projects authorized by the Church before the Reformers. I thought that this quote from the preface of the 1611 Authorized Version was very interesting:
”The godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the language which themselves understood, Greek and Latin…but also for the behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they, they provided translations into the Vulgar for their countrymen, insomuch that most nations under Heaven did shortly after their conversion hear Christ speaking unto them in their Mother tongue, not by the voice of their minister only but also by the written word translated.”
There were actually 15 German editions of the Bible before the time that Martin Luther translated his own independent edition, the earliest dating back to 1466 (Mentel, Strassburg). Even though the Church was very limited, with a shortage of Bibles and shortage of educated and holy priests, she made do with what she had. She didn’t try to deprive the people of the truth. I certainly don’t deny that there were many serious problems with the leadership in the Church during the time of the Middle-ages, but that doesn’t make the Church lose its validity.
The reason that the Church was so hesitant and cautious in authorizing translation into the vernacular was precisely because it valued the Scriptures so much and held it in such high regard. The Word of God is not something to be taken lightly. Not anyone can presume to have sufficient knowledge and experience to translate it into a different language accurately. The Bible is infallible. Even the Muslims call the translated Qu’ran merely a commentary, because they believe the original to be infallible, and they don’t assume that they can translate it without error. Apparently, Martin Luther didn’t have the same regard for the Scriptures. Not only grammatical errors come from translation, but serious doctrinal issues could be questioned as a result of a single misinterpreted word. The Church didn’t want that to happen, and she took every precaution against it. But eventually, we did get sufficient knowledge and technology to go about with better authorized translations. We have the ability to do now what we could not do in the Middle-ages.
c) I just covered a little bit of this, so I’ll just answer your question about Tyndale’s heresy. Tyndale was a follower of Luther, and he believed and taught against the authority of the Church. His translation was full of commentaries that blasphemed the pope. He had an agenda against the Catholic Church, which was undeniably obvious to see in his notes and in his biased translation.
~~~~~
Nerdanel wrote: “…if it were not for them, who knows but we might be reading the Bible in Latin to this day.”
~~~~~
Only a few years after Tyndale, in 1582, the Church came out with an authorized English translation of the New Testament called the Douay-Reims version. The OT translation came out in 1609.
d) The reason I believe that the Church itself cannot be corrupt is because it is the Body of Christ Jesus. Christ cannot be corrupt, so then, neither can the Church. The official teachings of the Church never changed, even though many people in the Church (sadly, including priests) preached against it. Martin Luther not only wanted to reform the corruption of the people in the Church, but he wanted to change things that had been taught by the Church for more than 1000 years. The former was a worthy cause, but the latter was irrational.
e) Yes, Luther rejected the book of Revelation, and also Esther, Hebrews, James, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, & Baruch.
~~~~~
Nerdanel wrote: “God would not have allowed the book of Revelation to be included in the Bible, if he had not meant for it to be there.”
~~~~~
I don’t know if you accept the deuterocanonical books as Scripture or not, but if God allowed them to be in the original canon, why would anyone think that He didn’t really mean for them to be there? Luther eventually removed those 7 books right along with Revelation and the others. Why would Protestants (or non-Catholic Christians if you prefer, since Protestant is not a broad enough term) not accept those 7 books? Why have they left them out of their Bibles?
You brought up Mary and the saints. Perhaps I will type up a more detailed entry about Mary in the future if you wish. There is so much that I could say about her. As for the saints, I have written about them already here: http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/231687/ and http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/346605/.
I will also get to work writing up a post about the “call no man father” issue. I know that you brought it up elsewhere, so I think it’s worth making an entry about. We are already discussing so many things in these comments, so I think it’d be best to not go off on any more tangents (very hard to do, I know, because there are so many things to discuss). As you said, it is already very muddled. However, I will do my best to explain the issues that you brought up in upcoming blog entries.
Pax Christi my friend,
~the Catholic apologist
2. Martin Luther, the early Church, and the Apocalypse
a) Simony. What I meant by “that hasn’t changed” is that the fact that simony is a heresy hasn’t changed. I’m sure that it still happens today, but it was more widespread during that time. And, seeing as it is a defined heresy, yes, I think that it is unacceptable.
b) You seem to be of the opinion that the Church refused to translate the Bible or to even attempt to communicate it to the common people in their mother tongues. Remember that though the Mass and the Scripture readings were in Latin, the homily (sermon) was not always so. The reason it existed in the first place was so that the pastor could explain to the people what the Scriptures meant. The people were not so ignorant of the Scriptures as you may think. They had it painted on their walls and windows, carved into their buildings, artistically portrayed in nearly every manner imaginable. They would have to be deaf and blind to not know the Gospel: that Christ died for their salvation, was buried and rose again. Simply because they didn’t hold a Bible in their hands doesn’t mean that they couldn’t have a personal relationship with God. No Christian had the Bible for the first 300 years of the Church.
After doing a little bit of research, I’ve found that there actually were translation projects authorized by the Church before the Reformers. I thought that this quote from the preface of the 1611 Authorized Version was very interesting:
”The godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the language which themselves understood, Greek and Latin…but also for the behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they, they provided translations into the Vulgar for their countrymen, insomuch that most nations under Heaven did shortly after their conversion hear Christ speaking unto them in their Mother tongue, not by the voice of their minister only but also by the written word translated.”
There were actually 15 German editions of the Bible before the time that Martin Luther translated his own independent edition, the earliest dating back to 1466 (Mentel, Strassburg). Even though the Church was very limited, with a shortage of Bibles and shortage of educated and holy priests, she made do with what she had. She didn’t try to deprive the people of the truth. I certainly don’t deny that there were many serious problems with the leadership in the Church during the time of the Middle-ages, but that doesn’t make the Church lose its validity.
The reason that the Church was so hesitant and cautious in authorizing translation into the vernacular was precisely because it valued the Scriptures so much and held it in such high regard. The Word of God is not something to be taken lightly. Not anyone can presume to have sufficient knowledge and experience to translate it into a different language accurately. The Bible is infallible. Even the Muslims call the translated Qu’ran merely a commentary, because they believe the original to be infallible, and they don’t assume that they can translate it without error. Apparently, Martin Luther didn’t have the same regard for the Scriptures. Not only grammatical errors come from translation, but serious doctrinal issues could be questioned as a result of a single misinterpreted word. The Church didn’t want that to happen, and she took every precaution against it. But eventually, we did get sufficient knowledge and technology to go about with better authorized translations. We have the ability to do now what we could not do in the Middle-ages.
c) I just covered a little bit of this, so I’ll just answer your question about Tyndale’s heresy. Tyndale was a follower of Luther, and he believed and taught against the authority of the Church. His translation was full of commentaries that blasphemed the pope. He had an agenda against the Catholic Church, which was undeniably obvious to see in his notes and in his biased translation.
~~~~~
Nerdanel wrote: “…if it were not for them, who knows but we might be reading the Bible in Latin to this day.”
~~~~~
Only a few years after Tyndale, in 1582, the Church came out with an authorized English translation of the New Testament called the Douay-Reims version. The OT translation came out in 1609.
d) The reason I believe that the Church itself cannot be corrupt is because it is the Body of Christ Jesus. Christ cannot be corrupt, so then, neither can the Church. The official teachings of the Church never changed, even though many people in the Church (sadly, including priests) preached against it. Martin Luther not only wanted to reform the corruption of the people in the Church, but he wanted to change things that had been taught by the Church for more than 1000 years. The former was a worthy cause, but the latter was irrational.
e) Yes, Luther rejected the book of Revelation, and also Esther, Hebrews, James, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, & Baruch.
~~~~~
Nerdanel wrote: “God would not have allowed the book of Revelation to be included in the Bible, if he had not meant for it to be there.”
~~~~~
I don’t know if you accept the deuterocanonical books as Scripture or not, but if God allowed them to be in the original canon, why would anyone think that He didn’t really mean for them to be there? Luther eventually removed those 7 books right along with Revelation and the others. Why would Protestants (or non-Catholic Christians if you prefer, since Protestant is not a broad enough term) not accept those 7 books? Why have they left them out of their Bibles?
You brought up Mary and the saints. Perhaps I will type up a more detailed entry about Mary in the future if you wish. There is so much that I could say about her. As for the saints, I have written about them already here: http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/231687/ and http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/346605/.
I will also get to work writing up a post about the “call no man father” issue. I know that you brought it up elsewhere, so I think it’s worth making an entry about. We are already discussing so many things in these comments, so I think it’d be best to not go off on any more tangents (very hard to do, I know, because there are so many things to discuss). As you said, it is already very muddled. However, I will do my best to explain the issues that you brought up in upcoming blog entries.
Pax Christi my friend,
~the Catholic apologist
