- Discussion:
-Leila Miller wrote an article attempting to illustrate how the concept of Sola Scriptura is unworkable, resulting in hopeless doctrinal confusion and disorder. The author characterizes non-Catholic interpretations of biblical texts as being inherently relativistic, since they do not originate from an infallible teaching authority that issues decrees for everyone else to obey. Rome touts itself to be the solution to all theological and exegetical debates. Following are excerpts from the author in bold letters along with a critique of those assertions:
"...this new paradigm of each Christian interpreting Scripture for himself means that there are as many interpretations of Scripture as there are Protestants. As you can imagine, this leads to a host of problems for a religion that exists to proclaim Truth."
The biblical authors intended that their writings be used in instructing believers while absent (Romans 15:4; 2 Corinthians 13:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:5; 1 Timothy 3:14-15). We have no other source to turn to but them today, since the apostles and prophets have all passed away. With that being said, some parts of Scripture are more complex and require in-depth study. Sometimes we may even need other people to explain passages to us. However, that does not require a person to have some ability to infallibly interpret Scripture. The Bereans serve as a historical example of individual interpretation without an infallible authority to guide them (Acts 17:11-12). Therefore, private examination of Scripture is not a "new paradigm."
"Protestants will tell you that sincere Christians can find the Truth easily, because the "Scriptures are clear" -- and yet Protestants cannot seem to agree on even the essentials of salvation."
It is a fact there are disagreements that are peripheral and tertiary in nature. Some of those issues are both philosophical and exegetical. For example, the debate in regards to the nature of predestination is one that can be traced back to the days of Augustine. It has not even at this point in time been dogmatically defined by the Catholic Church. Further, anyone who takes even a cursory glance at various historic Protestant traditions knows that there are hardly any differences on the essentials of salvation. Finally, there is the possibility that people reject what Scripture says in spite of its "clear" teaching. That the dogmas of Rome have been laid out in a systematic fashion, does not by itself prove anything. Thus, the Magisterium is not quite the silver bullet it is made out to be.
"Catholics, thankfully, don't have that headache. We know what the Church teaches on every issue that touches on salvation, because Tradition has been handed down intact throughout the centuries, both written and orally, and those teachings are accessible to all."
This reasoning sounds good in theory, but has not proven itself to be effective in real life. It is even naïve as to how solutions to everyday problems are discovered. Further, there are just as many divisions within the Roman Catholic Church as there are Roman Catholics themselves. For example, they disagree on the relationship between Scripture and tradition. They disagree on the number of teachings which should be considered infallible, and even what they are. Catholics disagree as to the meaning of several passages in the Bible. Many Catholic biblical scholars do not even uphold the inerrancy of Scripture. Other issues have arisen, such as a threat of schism within the Church of Rome with more traditionalist folks on the issue of homosexuality:
"Much of the dissent has remained within the Vatican walls, as Francis’s opponents worked to stonewall reforms. A few high-ranking church leaders have questioned him publicly about his teachings. But the simmering opposition has suddenly exploded across the Catholic world, with a former Vatican ambassador accusing the pope of covering up sexual abuse — and demanding that Francis step down. The accusations came in a 7,000-word letter written by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò that could be viewed as an act of courage or unprecedented defiance. Either way, it sheds light on the opposition movement, and particularly its insistence that homosexuality within the church — and Francis’s inability to keep it at bay — is to blame for the sexual abuse crisis."...“We are a step away from schism,” said Michael Sean Winters, a columnist for the National Catholic Reporter. “I think there is a perception among the pope’s critics that there is vulnerability here — on the part of the pope and in the Vatican generally.”
Consider also that Rome's teaching on the death penalty is subject to change. In the words of Edward Feser, a Catholic philosopher:
"For another thing, if the Pope is saying that capital punishment is always and intrinsically immoral, then he would be effectively saying – whether consciously or unconsciously – that previous popes, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and even divinely inspired Scripture are in error. If this is what he is saying, then he would be attempting to “make known some new doctrine,” which the First Vatican Council expressly forbids a pope from doing. He would, contrary to the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI, be “proclaim[ing] his own ideas” rather than “bind[ing] himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word.” He would be joining that very small company of popes who have flirted with doctrinal error. And he would be undermining the credibility of the entire Magisterium of the Church, including his own credibility. For if the Church has been that wrong for that long about something that serious, why should we trust anything else she teaches? And if all previous popes have been so badly mistaken about something so important, why should we think Pope Francis is right?"
Consider this excerpt from Ignitum Today on the issue of Catholics being divided on the dogma of transubstantiation:
"According to John Young, theologian and philosopher, “Protestants reject transubstantiation, and so do many Catholic scholars. The average Catholic is vague concerning the nature of the Eucharistic presence of Christ, and one can sympathize with him, in view of the lack of clear teaching about the Most Blessed Sacrament." He further asserts, “The basic objection to the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence is not that it is against Scripture, but that it is against reason.” Theologian and professor at Virginia Seminary, Charles P. Price similarly believes that “most Catholics, without realizing it or perhaps considering it, actually believe in Consubstantiation,” as did Luther, and even a Catholic would be hard-pressed to refute the allegation."
Is not the dogma of the Mass essential to Roman Catholicism? Indeed it is. Yet, the above excerpt plainly tells us that a significant number of Roman Catholics do not agree with official church teaching on this issue. Consequently, claims of unity existing within the Roman Catholic Church have been greatly inflated. Should we conclude from this that the Magisterium needs an infallible interpreter in order for it to make sense to us? The root cause of this rejection of Catholic teaching by Catholics themselves is not the biggest issue here. Division over transubstantiation exists among Catholics in many parts of the Western world.
Further, the Roman Catholic Church has never provided an "infallible" interpretation for most of Scripture. Only a handful of passages have been officially defined, and even those definitions serve Rome’s own purposes. This lack of clarity leaves Roman Catholics without a definitive standard for interpreting almost the whole Bible. To compound the issue, while Rome claims certainty in the infallibility of its decrees, it offers no such guarantee for the theological reasoning underpinning those decrees, leaving room for inconsistencies and ambiguity. Consider the words of the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia online:
Some might object that Rome has no need to define every verse of the Bible, arguing that it has already established sufficient principles for sound interpretation. Yet, this claim only underscores the problem: without clear, infallible definitions, these principles are open to subjective application, and Roman Catholics remain reliant on human tradition over the teaching of Scripture itself. It is also argued that reliance on Scripture alone leads to interpretive chaos. However, the foundational doctrines of Protestantism, such as justification by faith alone and the deity of Christ, remain widely agreed upon, demonstrating that Scripture alone provides a cohesive framework for essential doctrine.
If an infallible interpreter of Scripture were truly essential as the Roman Catholic Church claims it to be, then one would expect a comprehensive interpretation of the whole Bible to be made. Instead, it leaves the vast majority of texts open to interpretation, creating ambiguity for Catholics seeking infallible clarity on key passages while not allowing them to make official interpretations of the text for themselves.
"At base, the divide between Protestants and Catholics boils down to authority. If there is no earthly, human authority, if everyone gets to decide for himself what the Bible means, then we have a system of subjectivity and chaos."
The claim of Protestants being "subjective" is ironic, since Roman Catholics *subjectively* believe the Roman Catholic Church to be objectively authoritative. We all have to make personal decisions in searching for truth. No one is exempt from using his fallible reasoning faculties in analyzing written and spoken content. Everybody has to fallibly interpret communicated messages. Roman Catholics cannot have their cake and eat it too. They must fallibly interpret every word of church teaching, whether they retrieve information from Papal Encyclicals, Ecumenical Council documents, the catechism, hearing priests during Mass, or the Code of Canon Law.
Roman Catholics can and do possess individualized, subjective interpretations of Roman Catholicism. They must judge for themselves the validity of the Roman Catholic Church in order to argue their position. Catholics apologists *subjectively* appeal to evidence, which has to be analyzed in their own minds and by those who encounter their claims. In making this kind of an argument, Catholics sever the very branch of logic that they sit on because one could not even begin to submit to some outside authority without *subjectively* making the choice to do so. Therefore, they are not in any better of a position to understand spiritual truth than anyone else. The belief of Catholics in the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church is itself fallible.
When interpreting Scripture, a person should take into account historical context and various literary devices. Commentaries, lexicons, concordances, and dictionaries are useful in matters of biblical interpretation. Further, not every argument or interpretation is equally valid. If one must have some special authority in order to give grounds for his beliefs, then how does he become a Roman Catholic in the first place? One cannot argue for an authority by appealing to that same authority. There has to be external sources verifying to some degree its reliability or credibility, which, once again, requires a person to sift through information on his own.
On what basis does one establish the authority of the Roman Catholic Church? Since such a process involves using one's own powers of reason in examining pieces of evidence, then the person investigating is acting just like a Protestant or anyone else. Having a representative available like the pope to preside over a whole group only means that Catholics have decided for themselves to believe the claims he makes on religious issues. It does nothing in and of itself to simplify hard theological questions. They still exist. Moreover, what Rome requires is not actually unity, but uniformity, of thought. It is entirely possible for people who have different points of view to co-exist peacefully. If Sola Scriptura is invalidated because of divisions, then the same standard applies to the magisterium of the Catholic Church.
