One of Rome's defenders posted this picture of Martin Luther pointing to a passage of Scripture attached with the typical Roman Catholic argument: "Protestantism didn't get rid of the Papacy. It made every man his own Pope." If I was ever to fall victim to rage baiting, this meme would do it! This meme is a demonstration that Rome's defenders have no idea how inconsistent they are with this argument. Let's poke around a little at the origins of this catchline and then demonstrate Rome's defenders using this argument refute themselves.
Documentation
It's blatantly obvious this quote is not from Martin Luther. Google A.I. says, "The quote, attributed to English essayist and critic Matthew Arnold (1822–1888)." If you come across a Google search using the word "attributed" to this or that person... stop your search! I've done a few of these "attributed to" searches, and they typically end in frustration and failure. Whichever Google programmer added "attributed to," kudos to you on the one hand, and thanks for wasting my time on the other.
If you limit your search to "every man his own pope," old results do appear. One interesting result comes from the popular Roman Catholic book, The Faith of Our Fathers by Cardinal James Gibbons. The line occurs in a chapter dedicated to defending the "Infallibly of the Popes":
A Protestant Bishop, in the course of a sermon against Papal Infallibility, recently used the following language: "For my part, I have an infallible Bible, and this is the only infallibility that I require." This assertion, though plausible at first sight, cannot for a moment stand the test of sound criticism. Let us see, sir, whether an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. Either you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is correct, or you are not. If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and of course for every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny to the Pope, and which we claim only for him. You make every man his own Pope. If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of the whole Bible, - and this is a privilege you do not claim, - then, I ask, of what use to you is the objective Infallibility of the Bible, without an infallible interpreter?
There are older search results than Gibbons. For instance, this 1829 excerpt,
And with respect to Luther; it is an historical fact, we are told, that he set aside the ancient method of instructing the Christian laity by the authoritative teaching of their pastors, and laid down the rule of establishing by each man's private judgment, what are the doctrines and institutions of Christ, and what are the conditions of salvation. Now every one, who has the slightest acquaintance with the history of the Reformation, must know that both these assertions are absolutely groundless. But, perhaps, the Bishop means, that Luther, though he did not formally abolish the ministerial office, virtually dispensed with it, by establishing the principle, which made every man his own pope, and taught him that the doctrines, precepts and institutions of Christ, and the conditions of salvation, were just what his own judgment might determine them to be.
I suspect "every man his own pope" goes back even further, I would not be surprised to find it floating around in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries (example here, 1768, 1774). Will the originator of the statement be found? Well, it probably won't be me unless it pops up on its own or one you find it for me. I'm content with simply documenting that this type of Roman Catholic polemical argument has been around for hundreds of years. Let that sink in!
How to Respond: Expose Roman Catholic Double Standards
In the reasoning of Rome's defenders, they are blatantly saying Protestantism rejected the authority of the papacy in regard to Biblical interpretation, ushering in wild eyed private interpretations, leading to utter interpretive lawlessness. Their blame is often (if not solely) placed on Martin Luther. If he had not ushered in this anarchy, then the catholic church would be unified in its understanding of the Bible. Their unstated solution in the meme: present a covert appeal to the infallibility of the pope as the sole infallible interpreter of Scripture. If Protestants placed the Pope in his rightful place, there would certainly be a unified understanding of Scripture!
There are at least four major ironies with this solution.
First, the Papacy has had 2000 years to infallibly interpret the Bible. They claim this is their job:
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him [Catechism of the Catholic Church].
As I see it, they're a little behind in getting the project finished before the end of the world. Don't take it from me, consider these statements from reputable Roman Catholic sources:
"To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible" (Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible, 40).
"Very few texts have in fact been authoritatively determined and ‘there consequently remain many important matters in the explanation of which sagacity and ingenuity of Catholic interpreters can and should be freely exercised'" (Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 60).
If these Roman Catholic scholars are correct, when Rome's defenders choose to use a passage from the Bible, aren't they necessarily engaged in the process of... personally interpreting Scripture? There are many issues in the Bible that could use some infallible clarity... for instance, the age of the earth and the definitive view on human evolution. Catholic Answers states, "What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief." I don't get it... why can't the Pope settle it? Doesn't anyone care to bring him a Bible and open it up to the first chapters of Genesis and get it settled?
I noticed the inserts and verse commentary were sometimes mismatched in their interpretive answers. For instance, the verse commentary on Luke 1:28 says nothing about Mary being immaculately conceived, while the insert uses it as its prime proof-text. The text of the Bible used (NAB) translates kecharitomene “Hail, favored one!” and the verse commentary explains it simply as an announcement paralleling that given to Zechariah about the birth of John. The insert though translates kecharitomene as “highly graced” or “full of grace,” and is an “…indication of an unparalleled grace given by God to our Lady: She was conceived without the defect of original sin” (Insert R-1).
Commenting on Matthew 1:25, the verse commentary states, “The Greek word translated ‘until’ does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it,” while insert Q-1 defending the perpetual virginity of Mary, says, “[W]hen St. Matthew in his gospel says that Joseph ‘had no relations with [Mary] until she bore a son’ (1:25), he does not necessarily imply that such relations followed afterward.” Notice what’s different between the two answers? The insert leaves out anything that would suggest “nor does it exclude it.” The insert goes on to argue that “until” should be understood to give credence to perpetual virginity.
Insert H-2 asks “Is Purgatory in the Bible?” It immediately cites 2 Maccabees 12:38-42 as scriptural proof. The verse commentary though points out only that what is being mentioned is similar to the Catholic teaching of Purgatory, “…but not quite the same.” Well, is the verse teaching about Purgatory or not?
I've also come across popular Roman Catholics commentators disagreeing with each other on the Bible passages and statistical proof that a majority of Roman Catholics don't understand such quintessential Roman Catholic teachings like the Eucharist. For example, here, here, and here to point out only a few examples from a much larger pool (see for instance my old blog entries, Blueprint for Anarchy). Since the Papacy has not done the work of infallibly interpreting Scripture, Rome's defenders by necessity are using their own private interpretation on the Bible and... on just about everything! A.A. Hodge pointed out long ago:
22. How may it be shown that the Romanist theory, as well as the Protestant, necessarily throws upon the people the obligation of private judgment?
Is there a God? Has he revealed himself? Has he established a church? Is that church an infallible teacher? Is private judgment a blind leader? Which of all pretended churches is the true one? Every one of these questions evidently must be settled in the Private judgment of the inquirer, before he can, rationally or irrationally, give up his private judgment to the direction of the self–asserting church. Thus of necessity Romanists appeal to the Scriptures to prove that the Scriptures cannot be understood, and address arguments to the private judgment of men to prove that private judgment is incompetent; thus basing an argument upon that which it is the object of the argument to prove is baseless.
107. The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore ALL that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." [Vatican II DV 11]
This statement itself is prone to multiple interpretations within Roman Catholicism. Conservative Roman Catholic apologists see this as a clear statement that the entirety of Scripture is without error. Some significant Roman Catholic scholars though (like R.A.F. MacKenzie and Raymond Brown) see the phrase “for the sake of our salvation” as limiting inerrancy to only those sections of Scripture that teach about salvation. Which is it my Roman Catholic friends? You can't know for sure because your papacy hasn't told you! How much effort would it take the "infallible" Pope to answer this basic question? Why wouldn't it be on the Vatican "to do" list of one of the most important issues that needs resolution? I just don't get it.
Third, the problem for Roman Catholics is compounded yet again because their church also says that a doctrine can be infallibly defined, but the scriptural proofs used to support it utilized by the Church’s theologians might not actually support it. In other words, one can have certainty for a doctrine but not have certainty in the scriptural proof texts for that doctrine. The infallibleness is in the decree, not in the reasoning or Bible passages supporting that decree. The Catholic Encyclopedia states,
…[T]he validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.
Note also the words of Roman Catholic theologian, Johann Mohler:
Catholic theologians teach with general concurrence, and quite in the spirit of the Church, that even a Scriptural proof in favour of a decree held to be infallible, is not itself infallible, but only the dogma as defined.” (Johann Adam Mohler, Symbolism: Exposition of the doctrinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their Symbolic Writings, p. 59-60.
Fourth, Never assume an individual defender of Rome represents official Roman Catholicism. They do not. They're typically random people on the Internet with no official standing within the church. One of the most bizarre online experiences I witnessed was watching the members of the now defunct Catholic Answers discussion forums verbally contradict and chastise a member claiming to be a retired Roman Catholic priest. So much for respecting authority!
Challenge Rome's online defenders to at least quote and utilize their infallible statements (especially on Bible verses) rather than giving their personal opinions. Do not let them functionally get rid of the papacy. The bare truth is that Rome's online defenders cannot escape themselves. They are privately interpreting Roman Catholicism without having any meaningful authority granted to them by the Vatican. I highly doubt many of their webpages, Facebook posts and tweets, etc., have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. Even many of those that publish books don't always have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. They are themselves.. their own pope.
Conclusion
The bottom line as I see it, is that if you make an argument against a position, you better not be able to apply the argument to your own position. For this meme, Roman Catholicism does not pass the sniff test. For my Roman Catholic readers, before you chastise Protestants for interpreting the Bible, clean your own house first! Where is the social media Roman Catholic outrage that the Papacy has barely done what they claim to be able to do? Where are the sarcastic memes pointing it out?
I hadn't thought about The New Catholic Answer Bible in many years. It was only recently on social
The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment