This is often missed by those engaging Roman Catholics. If the canon is the very voice of God and the measuring rod, then it must be that which judges all things, including church history, any alleged "infallible" pronouncements, [T]radition and [t]radition. It can't logically be any other way. It can't be that infallible pronouncements and Tradition measure or rule what the Bible says on anything. The Bible is to measure and rule the church rather than the church measuring and ruling the Bible. If this were reversed, the Bible in effect would no longer be functioning as canon. The church, Tradition, infallible pronouncements, etc., would be functioning as the canon. This is what is meant by the phrase sola ecclesia. I'm not sure who originally coined the phrase, but it is indeed an apt way to summarize the actual Roman Catholic rule of faith or measuring rod. Dr White explained long ago:
What is sola ecclesia? It is the concept that the Roman Church (exemplified in the Papacy especially) is the sole and final authority in all matters. Scripture and Tradition (whatever that is in particular) are subservient to the Church, despite Rome’s protests otherwise. A moment’s reflection demonstrates why this is: Rome claims to define both what Scripture is (the canon), and what Scripture says (interpretation of particular passages, as well as the message of Scripture en toto). Likewise, she claims to be able to determine what is "tradition"... and what this tradition then means. Hence, if you control the definition of both the content and meaning of both Scripture and Tradition and you claim to be infallible as well (meaning you cannot retract what you have decided these things teach and have officially defined these views in the past), the result is inevitable: sola ecclesia. The Church as the final authority in all things.
Posts
13 comments:
As saith the pope (not that we cannot find statements that scripture supreme),
Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. - PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, (On the Study of Holy Scripture), Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, dated November 18th, 1893.
The question is, upon what basis can be ascertain that Rome's claim is true? We cannot by appeal to Scripture, as that relies upon fallible human reasoning, which is objected to as being unable to provide certainty, thus the necessity of the assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM). Thus one must have a prior faith in the latter in order to make a sure decision.
As they cannot, while the RC will criticize an evangelical having no basis for assurance even though his authority is Divine (and was established as such without Rome's AIM), the RC himself has only made an fallible decision to trust in his (asserted) infallible authority.
And upon what basis does an RC have that an infallible decree is infallible?
It does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural evidence, as that would make Scripture supreme, and guarantee of infallibility does not extend to the reasoning or arguments behind such decree. They may be invoked, but that does not render a decree infallible.
Instead we are told that pronouncements of the sacred supreme magisterium are infallible whenever they conform to her infallibly defined scope and subject- based criteria. Yet whether a decree conforms to this requires fallible interpretation. And here is the basis for Rome's claim to assured infallibility; that is she has infallibly declared she is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined formula, thus rendering her declaration of infallibility to be infallible, and under which Scripture and history can all be made to conform to her, and to which dissent is not allowed and assent of faith required.
But which is not how Scripture itself nor apostolic authority was established or exercised, but these were established by manifest power in effect and attestation and conformity to that which was previously established by these means, going back to the beginning when God first revealed Himself to man, and confirmed the faith of men like Abraham, which Moses, the manifest man of God, wrote of and who expanded the moral code. And the Scriptures became the standard for obedience and testing truth claims.
And the true church is manifest as being that of the living God by its effectual preaching of the Scriptural gospel of grace which changes hearts and lives, and by other holy fruits, and not by self-declaration. (1Cor 4:20) But which we and i need to better evidence of in this day.
Does God have Heaven-bound followers of Christ coming from different canons?
Does God have Heaven-bound followers of Christ coming from different canons?
I've stated more than once that there probably are those who are true Christians within Romanism. They are elect despite Romanism. I certainly am in no position to look into anyone's soul. The flip side of this is when Roman Catholic apologists ask me if I think they are my "Christian brothers." Based on their espousal of Romanism, I cannot say yes. I can't look into their hearts and know the state of their soul either, but their rejection of the Gospel and the sole authority of Scripture dictates I treat them as if they are not my "Christian brothers."
A few months back I wrote a paper on this based on my reading of Karl Barth. Barth, while saying some things I find utterly abhorrent also made some good points. Perhaps I'll post it sometime in the future.
Hello James, here is a question I have that, quite frankly, puzzles me. It comes on the heels of your most current response but please remove if this is too off topic for this post.
My thoughts are along the lines of who the RCC would consider “in Christ”. It appears to openly claim that all are "born again", "regenerated", or "in Christ" through water baptism, as cited in the RC Catechism 1213:
“Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit, and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."“
Likewise, the RCC claims that we separated brethren are also, brought into Christ through Baptism as well, a quote from Dominus Iesus
"On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic , are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church . Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church."
So, in order to “know” God, or better put be “known by God” (Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage) is equated with Baptism.
Now here comes the conundrum I can’t seem to get by.
According to Matthew 7:21-23 Jesus said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity
My question, who are the “them” in verse 23? Jesus states he never knew them, and obviously he knows everyone in the generic sense,. He is clearly refering to knowing them in a salvific sense, or those who are sealed by his Holy Spirit, or his "adopted children", etc. It can’t possibly be anyone who was baptized since the RCC claims that Baptism is the way someone becomes “sons of God”, and likewise of Protestants who are also baptized, since they too are “by Baptism, incorporated in Christ”
Verse 22 says that they have prophesied, cast out devils, and have done many wonderful works, in his name - a clear indication, they saw themselves as “Christians” or "In Christ".
So, how do RC’s reconcile the statement that Christ says he “never” knew them, with the belief that basically all “Christians” are in Christ through Baptism and are known of Him, with the identity of the “them” in verse 23?
Who are they?
Here's my 2 cents, and a few possibilities from Catholic Answers.
In my interactions with Roman Catholics, I've been told that those who know Roman Catholicism teaches the truth but yet reject that truth are damned. Therefore I would posit that perhaps a Roman Catholic would answer as follows: those described as saying "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?" describes these people. That's simply a guess.
The closest thing to an infallible interpreter is Catholic Answers. They allegedly have the ability to tell Roman Catholics what the real "Roman Catholic" position is. I briefly searched their site, and here's a few things I found:
Jimmy Akin refers to the passage as explaining the difference between false teaching systems and false teachers.
This CA article by Tim Staples simply uses some of the text to point out some sins are wicked works that need to be cleansed in purgatory.
In regards to the text, this CA article asks,"How many teachings can we intentionally fail to observe and still claim to be faithful Christians (cf. Mt 7:21-23?)"
This CA article states, "Love of God and neighbor is a matter of life and death (Dt 30; John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, 12), for even though a person has divine faith as a free commitment to Christ, if he has not charity—and the deeds of charity where need requires and capacity exists—he cannot be saved." Matthew 7:22ff is the cited.
This CA entry cites Cyprian: "The Lord denounces [Christian evildoers], and says, ‘Many shall say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name, and in your name have cast out devils, and in your name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you who work iniquity’ [Matt. 7:21–23]. There is need of righteousness, that one may deserve well of God the Judge; we must obey his precepts and warnings, that our merits may receive their reward" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 15, 1st ed. [A.D. 251])."
-continued-
This CA article uses the text as an affirmation that there is a hell. The article concludes, "Saints are Called to Persevere Those final words are a call for perseverance. We cannot deny the reality and eternity of hell. But hell is a choice, and we do not have to choose it. To this end the Catechism exhorts us to live responsibly." The article cites the catechism that speaks of "the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where men will weep and gnash their teeth." This article echoes some of the above, but comes closest to making clear Roman Catholic sense: Roman Catholics need to persevere to remain saved. It's a dose of works righteousness consistent with Rome's gospel.
This article is consistent with the previous, noting the importance of works for salvation. So, I would posit that at least some of the Catholic Answers gang would interpret Matthew 7 to say that baptism isn't enough to save a person. Works must follow. If they don't, a baptized Roman Catholic may indeed hear the words, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
Hi James,
The RCC teaches the rule of faith is the Word of God, and that this comes to us thru Scripture and Tradition. I thought it was a good thing because it can make corrections when I or someone else goes astray. I think it was a good thing the Church did that for Arius, when it defended that Jesus was truly in fact the Son of God. In this case it preserved the Truth & true interpretation of Scripture [Ex Col 1:15-20] for you & I. Right vs wrong behavior is important, and us as followers of Jesus are trying to discern the will of God, what is holy and pleasing to Him. An example is birth control, the RCC teaches that it is gravely offensive to God, and since I [claim to] love him, I try my best to avoid what God hates. I was taught it is sinful by RCC. Really holy men, who are in love with Jesus, like John Piper, Dr Dobson, and their respective ministries, teach their congregations/flocks that it is morally permissible to use contraceptives. There is a need to resolve this moral dilemma, and the RCC offers a definitive answer on the basis that Scripture, Magisterium, & Tradition are equally useful and needed for knowing the right thing to do in this case. That is a good thing [if the teaching is in fact uniform with God's will]. I am trying to understand why this is a problem? Is it because you are concerned this creates potential for wrong teachings to be passed along [or has already]? God who can use Scripture, Magisterium, & Tradition to transmit to me without error what is sin and what is not, no?
Writing on the internet stinks because it allows you think all these rhetorical questions are me being a condescending snob when I'm not, they are genuine and polite inquiries.
Best,
Vince
Hi James,
Hello Vince.
The RCC teaches the rule of faith is the Word of God, and that this comes to us thru Scripture and Tradition.
Then I assume you would agree with at least some of what I've stated in this blog entry in regard to the word "canon".
My understanding of what Rome and her advocates mean by "Tradition" can be found here. Since I have no idea who you are, I have no idea exactly what you mean by "Tradition." For instance, Karl Keating (President of Catholic Answers) says "The part of revelation that was not committed to writing- the part that is outside the New Testament and is the oral teaching that is the basis of Tradition- that part of revelation Catholics also accept ..." On the other hand, Roman apologist Patrick Madrid states, "Scripture contains everything necessary for Christian teaching. All doctrines can be found there, implicitly or explicitly, but they're all there." For Madrid, Tradition functions as the act of handing down the gospel and also as the interpreter of biblical revelation, rather than revelation proper. Roman Catholic apologist Mark Shea approaches Tradition similar to Keating by noting the Bible refers to positive extra-biblical revelation handed down. Similarly to Madrid, he affirms a form of material sufficiency, "all the bricks necessary to build doctrine is there in Scripture." "Build doctrine" is a key element in his understanding of Tradition. It is not only the correct interpretation of the Bible given by the apostles (As Madrid holds), but is rather also the correct interpretation of revelation that grows and develops through history: "Tradition grows like a mustard seed and, as a result, gets more mustardy, not less." A Protestant that would charge a Catholic as holding to an extra-biblical tradition not traceable through history is answered that Tradition is "the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church." For Shea, a current dogma has grown to its particular state, and Tradition functions as a tool to determine which acorn became what oak tree.
So when you, Vince, write the word "Tradition" I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I've learned that it depends on which Roman Catholic I'm engaging as to its functional meaning.
-continued-
I thought it was a good thing because it can make corrections when I or someone else goes astray. I think it was a good thing the Church did that for Arius, when it defended that Jesus was truly in fact the Son of God. In this case it preserved the Truth & true interpretation of Scripture [Ex Col 1:15-20] for you & I.
This statement leads me to believe you would lean towards Madrid rather than Keating. Does Tradition function for you as that which correctly interprets the Bible?
I would not deny there is a sense in which tradition has a functional role in the church in protecting doctrine. I think the church indeed has authority to use Scripture for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (1 Tim 3:16-17). There is indeed a "tradition" of the church doing this, as you point out with your example of Arius.
I would not though claim this tradition is an infallible interpreter of Scripture, because really probably what you're talking about is not some sort of organic divine thing named "Tradition" but rather the infallible ability of your church to determine what the Bible teaches. I assume you believe your church claims to be that which infallibly determines what correct doctrine is. This would be an unproven presupposition on your part: it is a truth claim you simply begin with and build upon. I on the other hand would hold "the church" (in its broadest sense) does not have such infallible ability, and must continually conform herself to the word of God as found in the Bible. The Scriptures (the only extant record of god's voice of special revelation) do not speak of the Roman church having such infallible authority.
Right vs wrong behavior is important, and us as followers of Jesus are trying to discern the will of God, what is holy and pleasing to Him. An example is birth control, the RCC teaches that it is gravely offensive to God, and since I [claim to] love him, I try my best to avoid what God hates. I was taught it is sinful by RCC. Really holy men, who are in love with Jesus, like John Piper, Dr Dobson, and their respective ministries, teach their congregations/flocks that it is morally permissible to use contraceptives. There is a need to resolve this moral dilemma, and the RCC offers a definitive answer on the basis that Scripture, Magisterium, & Tradition are equally useful and needed for knowing the right thing to do in this case. That is a good thing [if the teaching is in fact uniform with God's will]. I am trying to understand why this is a problem? Is it because you are concerned this creates potential for wrong teachings to be passed along [or has already]? God who can use Scripture, Magisterium, & Tradition to transmit to me without error what is sin and what is not, no?
You say,"the RCC offers a definitive answer on the basis that Scripture, Magisterium, & Tradition are equally useful and needed for knowing the right thing to do in this case." While I can appreciate your concern for particular moral issues, the problem with your authority paradigm is that it goes to far, placing the Roman Church on equal ground with God's word. If the Roman magisterium would admit her error of claiming infallible authority, Protestants by and large would welcome her back into the church.
Writing on the internet stinks because it allows you think all these rhetorical questions are me being a condescending snob when I'm not, they are genuine and polite inquiries. Best, Vince
No, I didn't think that, but I do agree with you in essence that "writing on the Internet" has particular drawbacks.
Regards, James
Hi James,
Thank you for the reply. I still wasn't certain how Christians are supposed to settle moral issues not directly addressed in scripture. My wife and I suffer from primary infertility. Now if I am trying to discern the morality of in vitro fertilization, how am I to arrive at the certainty of doing what is right in God's eyes. I know His Holy Spirit will lead us in all Truth, but many believers prayerfully searching for an answer to this dilemma still arrive at different conclusions. I am not asking for 'your' answer per se, & I know the RCC teaches that they are an instrument along side Scripture whom God uses to communicate His will, but I am unclear how situations like this handled in the Reformed Church.
Best,
Vince
Vince,
The choice as I see it is not between an infallible church that makes infallible decisions and a fallible church with no authority acting lawlessly. I believe the church most certainly has authority, just not infallible authority. The Reformed church I belong to most certainly make pronouncements on moral issues. If though you think that the church must needs make infallible pronouncements on moral issues, then stick with Rome. The unfortunate part of your decision though (as I see it), is you need to be willing to accept Rome as an infallible authority as a beginning presupposition. History and scripture are not on your side.
Thank you for your reply James.
God bless you,
Vince
Drop by any time Vince.
Post a Comment