It's been insisted to me many times that I in particular, and those of us at Called To Communion, denigrate Sacred Scripture, or must make it seem opaque, in order to make a case for the Catholic Church and her Magisterium. This is false. The Church herself makes no such case, and as her loyal son, I have no interest in discouraging the reading of the Bible by anyone. How far back do you want to go? As many people have said before, critiquing Sola Scriptura is critiquing a methodology, not the source of the method. We Catholics understand that Sola Scriptura as a method and a rallying cry is an attempt (even unwittingly) to read the Scriptures against the Church, instead of within the Church.
It is beyond my purpose to explain exactly how clear (or not) the Scriptures are, not to mention beyond my ability. I want to reiterate and agree with what Bryan Cross and Neal Judisch have written, echoing also the contribution of my friend Fred Noltie. I have yet to successfully lobby for a change in that article's title (to, "The Noltie Conundrum," alas) but I do try. In any case, my appreciation in particular for Fred's insights stems from the fact that before I was a Catholic keyboard warrior "apologist"--which has some weird connotation of, "manipulative liar," if some are to be believed--I lived the uncertainty of what Fred describes. I absolutely agree with Keith Mathison that all appeals to Scripture are appeals to an interpretation of Scripture. "Whose interpretation of any text, or the whole of the Bible will be normative for Christians?" seems to be the real question. My understanding of the freedom granted to me by the faithful guardianship of the Magisterium is that a range of acceptable interpretations exists--in understanding Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture--and that my uses and applications ought to fall within this range. To this point I may return.
It seems to me that the entire point of saying, "The Catholic Church's doctrine X contradicts Scripture" or, "On the contrary; the Bible says..." is to say that what the Catholic Church teaches falls outside the acceptable range of meaning of the Biblical text. Irrespective of the merits of that argument, it should be noted for the sake of clarity that the statement, "The Bible says..." is an appeal to authority, which in light of Protestant views of Scripture (largely shared by us, as discussed above) is functionally equivalent to, "God says..." This is why Fred's insights are so important. Explore the dilemma as he lays it out there, in all its many aspects. For the sake of my argument, though, let's take the bad faith assumption out of the equation ("My interlocutor is wrong, because he is not led by the Holy Spirit."). Let's also take any assumptions about human depravity and weakness out, if only because we have a tendency to apply them to our interlocutors readily, but conveniently, not to our own interpretations. If we do this, we are left, it is claimed, with only the Holy Spirit speaking through the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit cannot say 2 mutually exclusive things about the same matter, at the same time. He neither lies, nor is mistaken, by definition, as God. I implore you to think about this, before you react in revulsion to any alternatives.
Here's the point, as forcefully as I can make it: If I say that the Bible teaches contrary to the Catholic faith, I appeal to one reading of one text. I cannot marshal every non-Catholic reading of every text, and behave as though it is one, because I know very well that I haven't triumphed with absolute clarity over Mark Dever's interpretation of the texts on baptism, for example, any more than I have silenced the Catholic on any other matter. Bare-minimum unity on dogmatics, and an invisible "Church" are the proof that perspicuity to the most necessary degree cannot be found. Not to mention the fact that such a "unity" is ad hoc. This reality alone begins to whisper to the pious heart that the Catholic Church is our home, even before the possibility is seriously explored and considered. Suppose the merest Mere Christianity is Catholic. Suppose my ad hoc thrashing about for the barest essentials from the first two Councils is in reality the grasping of a child for his mother? Dearest Lord Jesus, is it so? Is it, my brethren?
It is beyond my purpose to explain exactly how clear (or not) the Scriptures are, not to mention beyond my ability. I want to reiterate and agree with what Bryan Cross and Neal Judisch have written, echoing also the contribution of my friend Fred Noltie. I have yet to successfully lobby for a change in that article's title (to, "The Noltie Conundrum," alas) but I do try. In any case, my appreciation in particular for Fred's insights stems from the fact that before I was a Catholic keyboard warrior "apologist"--which has some weird connotation of, "manipulative liar," if some are to be believed--I lived the uncertainty of what Fred describes. I absolutely agree with Keith Mathison that all appeals to Scripture are appeals to an interpretation of Scripture. "Whose interpretation of any text, or the whole of the Bible will be normative for Christians?" seems to be the real question. My understanding of the freedom granted to me by the faithful guardianship of the Magisterium is that a range of acceptable interpretations exists--in understanding Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture--and that my uses and applications ought to fall within this range. To this point I may return.
It seems to me that the entire point of saying, "The Catholic Church's doctrine X contradicts Scripture" or, "On the contrary; the Bible says..." is to say that what the Catholic Church teaches falls outside the acceptable range of meaning of the Biblical text. Irrespective of the merits of that argument, it should be noted for the sake of clarity that the statement, "The Bible says..." is an appeal to authority, which in light of Protestant views of Scripture (largely shared by us, as discussed above) is functionally equivalent to, "God says..." This is why Fred's insights are so important. Explore the dilemma as he lays it out there, in all its many aspects. For the sake of my argument, though, let's take the bad faith assumption out of the equation ("My interlocutor is wrong, because he is not led by the Holy Spirit."). Let's also take any assumptions about human depravity and weakness out, if only because we have a tendency to apply them to our interlocutors readily, but conveniently, not to our own interpretations. If we do this, we are left, it is claimed, with only the Holy Spirit speaking through the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit cannot say 2 mutually exclusive things about the same matter, at the same time. He neither lies, nor is mistaken, by definition, as God. I implore you to think about this, before you react in revulsion to any alternatives.
Here's the point, as forcefully as I can make it: If I say that the Bible teaches contrary to the Catholic faith, I appeal to one reading of one text. I cannot marshal every non-Catholic reading of every text, and behave as though it is one, because I know very well that I haven't triumphed with absolute clarity over Mark Dever's interpretation of the texts on baptism, for example, any more than I have silenced the Catholic on any other matter. Bare-minimum unity on dogmatics, and an invisible "Church" are the proof that perspicuity to the most necessary degree cannot be found. Not to mention the fact that such a "unity" is ad hoc. This reality alone begins to whisper to the pious heart that the Catholic Church is our home, even before the possibility is seriously explored and considered. Suppose the merest Mere Christianity is Catholic. Suppose my ad hoc thrashing about for the barest essentials from the first two Councils is in reality the grasping of a child for his mother? Dearest Lord Jesus, is it so? Is it, my brethren?
Comments
A few days ago I remonstrated with you (in two parts) from your article on the topic of perspicuity. You chose not to post my reply. I notice this is getting typical, from "Catholic Answers" down the line, it seems Roman Catholic foot-soldiers are getting cold feet when it comes to debating when they see their theology has severe defects.
Essentially, I made it clear that papal subordination has no place in the gospel of Jesus Christ, yet you would prefer not to deal with the ramifications of what Bonifice was promoting. If Bonifice was wrong (and I would stake my eternal salvation on the fact he was), simply everything you write about and all your opinions on this that and the other thing, DO NOT MATTER, for at the end of the day, you are lost by placing your trust in a man, and Scripture is clear: cursed is the man who trusts in man". I also provided an iron-clad and irrefutable link to show what the bulk of early believers had to say about the clarity of Scripture, which militates VERY strongly against your position. But oh no, heavens to betsy, you can't deal with THAT either, can you? No of course not, it would be too humiliating, I quite understand.
You quote Romans 11 at the top of the page: "For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever!"
Excuse me, but... "TO HIM...TO HIM.... be the glory" seems to have escaped you, in that papal subordination does not give ***TO HIM*** the glory in salvation at ALL..... for it tempts our eyes to veer off the OBJECT of our salvation, and on to other objects; namely, the office called a papacy which the Bible knows nothing of; and a Pope, which the Bible knows nothing of, and to the church at Rome which the Bible knows nothing of either, especially in the book of ROOOOOMANS where it should be found if the claim was true.
So this is just to let you know that there are LOTS of us out there who are not intimidated by your pious antics in the least, and we will steadfastly fight you until kingdom come.
By the way, you are a coward, with a capital C.
Good day.
That's fine, Mr. K. I only hope you have an "apologetic" ready for Jesus Christ on Judgment Day to justify your bowing to the Pope as a necessary requirement for salvation. Considering the apostle Paul threw a fit when the Judaizers tried to pull that very same trick when it came to circumcision, I'm quite sure any explanation you provide will be unacceptable under his piercing glare.
May I suggest you watch the following wonderful 3 minute video which shows what's in store for those who attach a salvific efficacy to their good works, as well as hiding behind doctrines which are completely unsupported by Holy Writ? It speaks volumes.
https://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=7PK7YWNX
I will repost my comments only if you request I do so, as I have it in my folders.
I submit to the pope because that's what the earliest Christians did. They didn't think it was odd or blasphemous, or contrary to the Scriptures. Who am I to argue with the earliest Christians? Consequently, the Church of which he is the visible head is the Church Christ Himself founded. Everyone who does not agree with this Church is in heresy, and everyone who separates from her is a schismatic. Both groups are liable to the fires of Hell. The stakes are indeed high. Who sent you?
M.K. My original post contained no grammatical errors or weird typos. I can only surmise that when the post was transferred over to you, that some some sort of "transubstantiation" occurred, which I've seen before on other sites where a whole bunch of mishmash like... Zq%$^&*... is inserted throughout someone's text.
J.K. I submit to the pope because that's what the earliest Christians did.
M.K. There is not a speck of biblical support for the office of a Pope when the offices of the church ARE listed (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4). Was the Holy Spirit asleep at the switches that he would so rudely exclude the most important office of all? Ummm...it's not mentioned there because it was never what God intended. Divine Providence has given you a brain, but you refuse to use it to come to logical conclusions. In effect, you've decided to check your brain in with the Vatican hat-check girl, and then go mindlessly in to sit at the Pope's feet.
I understand very well that at the end of the day it doesn't really matter to you WHAT the Bible says. All that matters is what Rome, Italy dictates. But considering how emphatically and forcefully the word of God is extolled from Genesis to Revelation, your constant habit of always going outside the Text is bound to fail.
Yes, Vatican 1 did assert that right after Matt 16 ended, Peter was designated king of the world over the entire universal church. But that claim, from this so-called "infallible" church council, is categorically false. Even if we just look at NIcea, circa 325, no one there believed the bishop of Rome was the universal head of the church at that time. NOT ONE.
He may have been the bishop of the greatest see in the west, but no how, no way, was he the head of the "church universal." The council made this plain in their 6th canon:
"Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since ***THE LIKE IS CUSTOMARY**** for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges."
Logic demands that Roman claims simply cannot be true. The church at Nicea was neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Eastern Orthodox. It was just the church of Nicea coming together with all their strengths and weaknesses.
J.K. They didn't think [papal subordination] was odd or blasphemous, or contrary to the Scriptures. Who am I to argue with the earliest Christians?
M.K. Again, even right up to 325, there was no such thing as a "universal bishop". And again, you are sweeping under the rug the word of God, giving the impression that it is impossible to understand so why even try? Every speck of biblical and historical and LOGICAL evidence contrary to your position is simply dismissed in favor of the presupposition that the church at Rome has all the answers, and who cares that such a claim is not even in the book of ROMANS where it should be found if the claim were true? "Rome says so, I believe it, and that settles it." Such a theology, however, will never work.
J.K. Consequently, the Church of which he is the visible head is the Church Christ Himself founded.
M.K. What you are apparently unaware of, is that Boniface VIII taught that both Christ AND the Pope constitute ONE head of the church. According to his, Unam Sanctam: "...[in] the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ..."
Here Boniface defines TWO entities as being ONE head! Excuse me, but no church father ever suggested that Christ AND the pope constitute ONE head of the Church! It is illogical, unbiblical and a-historical.
Naturally, Boniface is partially right that Christ is the head of the Church and there is only one head. But one plus one is not one (!!!). Jesus alone is capable of being the head of the whole Church, of both those in heaven and on earth ( Col. 1:18; 2:19). Moreover, Peter and those after him are undeniably MEMBERS of Christ’s body, not the head of the body. Furthermore, Peter himself acknowledges that he is not the “Chief Shepherd” (1 Pet. 5:4). Boniface was absolutely WRONG.
J.K. Everyone who does not agree with this Church is in heresy, and everyone who separates from her is a schismatic. Both groups are liable to the fires of Hell. The stakes are indeed high.
M.K. Indeed, the stakes are high, but your position, which posits the exclusivity of the RCC, is fraught with difficulties from the get-go, for your very own catechism says the Lord uses non-catholic assemblies as a "means of salvation", which instantly swings the wrecking ball at your ludicrous claim that Protestants are heretics (818-19). Not to mention the fact that Frank the crank went to Switzerland last Oct to celebrate the Reformation, and upon his return put a statue of Luther in the Vatican until kingdom come ---and last month issued a postage stamp in the Reformation's honor! What's next, the canonization of Luther the heretic?
Second, you imply the protocol of always referring to the church fathers. But this reference point to quiet all your fears will never work. Not everyone limited salvation to membership in the RCC, or even to faith in Christ. For example, Justin Martyr circa 170, writes: “[Those] who lived according to reason were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them.” However, salvation by reason alone is another gospel, period, end of story. Too, Clement of Alexandria (circa 200), asserts: “before the advent of the Lord, philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness,” because, he says, it brought the Greeks to Christ as the Law did the Hebrews. Again, philosophy without Christ never saved anyone (Acts 17:22-31).
Looks like you'll have to get your brain back from the Vatican hat-check girl and start actually using it because your methodology is clearly not working.
You say in the article: It's been insisted to me many times that I in particular, and those of us at Called To Communion, denigrate Sacred Scripture, or must make it seem opaque, in order to make a case for the Catholic Church and her Magisterium. This is false.
M.K. This is true! When all is said and done, Scripture is thrown under the bus every chance you get. For example, Matt 16:18 is used to cover all the bases, such as to justify Bonifice VIII telling us that, "it is altogether necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff". Such is complete nonsense and stretching Matt 16 like a rubber band cannot and WILL NOT be tolerated by any true Christian until kingdom come. Paul threw a fit in the book of Galatians when the Judaizers sought to add even ONE thing to the gospel. Catholicism has added FAR MORE, and so you do indeed denigrate the Scriptures whether you like it or not by obscuring the horizon-filling grandeur of what the Lord Jesus Christ has accomplished FOR us, and replacing him (or at least splitting the credit with) the obnoxious doctrine of papal subordination.
Moreover, you denigrate the Scriptures by BREAKING THEM. How? One need only look to see Christ's command to partake of BOTH bread and wine, once again thrown under the bus in favor of the ludicrous insinuation of your favorite website, "Called to Communion only under ONE kind". Your reasons for doing this (and I know what they are) are beyond ridiculous. At the very least, even if Transubstantiation was true, we can rightly assume that the Lord would not take kindly to you cutting his command in half no matter WHAT he was intending at the Last Supper. It is bordering on the brink of spiritual dementia to suppose that Jesus would assign the Roman Catholic magisterium to officially BREAK the Scriptures when he so adamantly declared the "Scriptures cannot be broken" (!!!).
J.K: It seems to me that the entire point of saying, "The Catholic Church's doctrine X contradicts Scripture" or, "On the contrary; the Bible says..." is to say that what the Catholic Church teaches falls outside the acceptable range of meaning of the Biblical text.
M.K: I could not agree more! For example, both the catechism and the Pope contradict the Bible when they assert that there is no surer pledge than the Eucharist which is the “antidote of death” and “the pledge of our bodily resurrection at the end of the world" (CCC 1405; Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 18). The Bible says no such thing. On the contrary, it is not having ingested the Eucharist which confirms we shall be raised on the last day, but rather, the fact that we are “sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise who is the guarantee of our inheritance” (Eph 1:13-14, 4:30-1; 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5). In other words, the Spirit is given to us as a downpayment in pledge that the entire inheritance will follow because we are joint-heirs with Christ and it is THISSSSS power that will result in our resurrection: "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwells in you" (Romans 8:11). Again, the “water” of the Holy Spirit -- and not the Eucharist, becomes a river that bubbles up inside us, pledging to us eternal life (John 7:38-39).
J.K: The Holy Spirit cannot say 2 mutually exclusive things about the same matter, at the same time. He neither lies, nor is mistaken, by definition, as God.
M.K: No one is saying that the Holy Spirit is going to teach two mutually exclusive things to two Christians who are indwelt by him. What you don't stop to consider is that He is not under any obligation to reveal ALL truth to ALL people at ALL times...nor are his kids to be in lock-step unity at every moment. He may simply not turn on the light in someone's head so there may be God-glorifying controversy between the two parties, or three parties, or four parties. Why? So they all get off their lazy butts and go back to the Scriptures to check things out as did the Berean's (Acts 17)....so that the better of the arguments will be made manifest to all (Prov 18:17; 1 Cor 11:19). Or, do you not recall the disagreement between two spirit-filled men? Paul and Barnabas were at loggerheads, so they departed one from the other...an ordained disagreement I should think so that the gospel could be spread in more than one direction.
J.K: [I hear] whispers [in my] pious heart that the Catholic Church is [my] home
M.K: Which we believe will result in a passport to hell, sad to say. Boniface issued an unbiblical, provocative soteriological document upon which salvation is to be based, and this blasphemous requirement can and will do anything except send to their eternal doom, all those who cling to its madness.
J.K: Bare-minimum unity on dogmatics [as gleaned from Scripture] are the proof that perspicuity to the most necessary degree cannot be found.
M.K: The perspicuity of Scripture, including its formal and material sufficiency, is attested to by all the major players long before you came on the scene with your papal pretentions. The following list of voices will take you an hour to read and by its end, (if you ever get through it) should result in an immediate retraction from your dismal assertion above.
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/12/formal-sufficiency-of-scripture-fifth.html
You should be aware that your comments are published at my whim. Snark directed at me, or at my family (which includes Pope Francis) will get you nowhere. I’m not renowned for patience.
MJ: I never made that statement so I don't know where you're coming from and will not answer it.
JK: You may also want to consult the seven letters of Ignatius of Antioch.
MJ: Yeah, that's the easy way out, not giving any information to the reader and just let them assume Ignatitius believed Rome was the fount and apex of all truth. The real student of history will not allow your presumptions. When Ignatius wrote his letter to the Roman Church he didn't greet a SINGLE bishop near the beginning like he does when writing to other churches which had one (e.g. see his letters to the Trallians, Magnesians, and Ephesians). We see then, your apologetic begins to wilt like a daffodil in the sun.
RC scholar Raymond Brown admits, “No single-bishop is mentioned at Rome, probably because the church still had the twofold structure of presbyter-bishops and deacons” ("Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity", p. 202). Additionally, scholar John Meier confirms: “Ignatius is totally silent about the existence of this pivotal office in the Roman church, probably because – as we can see from 1 Clement – it did not exist in Rome at that time” (The Petrine Ministry in the New Testament and the Patristic Traditions, p. 27).
Hence, the record shows that the claim the early Roman church was being governed by a singular successor of Peter, to be false.
MK: The record does NOT indicate that Clement was a universal bishop over Christendom, let alone Pope. I proved that by giving you evidence from Nicea, which you chose not to print. It is crystal clear Nicea was not working under the auspices of the supposed "supreme" authority of a Roman bishop at that time, and since that is so, neither was Clement a Pope. Simple logic refutes you.
On the other hand, the evidence shows Clement was not the Roman bishop but was just a secretary of the early Roman Church who wrote on behalf of the Roman bishops. It is apparent from his letter to the Corinthians that there was no singular bishop of Rome at the time of its composition. He uses the first person plural... “we”... in the document. Here it is...
“Concerning the things pertaining to our religious observance which are most profitable for a life of goodness to those who would pursue a godly and righteous course, we have written to you” (Clement, Letter to the Corinthians, Ch. 64).
One never finds first person singular statements such as “I, bishop of Rome".... or ANY instances of first person singular at all. This suggests the document was written on behalf of the plurality of bishops that were in place.
If Clement was a Pope, why then do we read in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible:
“. . . it is certain that he did not function as a monarchical bishop, as Irenaeus later claimed (Adv. Haer. 3.3.3), since other early sources (notably Ignatius’ letter to Rome) confirm that the monarchical episcopate did not exist in Rome until at least the middle of the 2nd century (Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, p. 264).
JK: You should be aware that your comments are published at my whim
MJ: I know. I see you chose to reject my Parts 1 and 3.
JK: Snark directed at me, or at my family (which includes Pope Francis) will get you nowhere. I’m not renowned for patience.
MJ: But excuse me.... am I to assume that it was perfectly alright for the Council of Trent to call THEIR opposition, "satanic, godless, contentious and evil".... and I may not on occasion do the same?
But excuse me.... am I to assume that it was alright for Jesus to call Herod a fox in one place, (and insult the religious leaders 16 times in Matt 23).....and I may not on occasion do the same to those whom I perceive to be peddling false doctrine???
But excuse me, am I to assume it was alright for the N.T. letters to point out those who were "liars", "antichrists", "busy- bodies", etc, and I may not on occasion do the same?
Excuse me, biblical precedent proves name calling can actually be a virtue, and since Jesus did not sin by doing so, neither do I.
Not having patience is your own problem. While you may certainly choose to delete me, we both know I am definitely not out of line to stand aghast at the behavior of Francis and batting his eyes at the Lutherans. It is downright, revisionist history played out before you in real time. The catholic God excommunicated Luther way back when, so all of heaven would agree (even if Catholicism is true) that Frank's behavior deserves a dunce cap, especially when he set up that ridiculous statue of M.L. at the Vatican. When will this ecumenical madness end? I was just reading about his wanting the death penalty removed ENTIRELY....yet his own catechism, now obsolete, endorses it!
This post is actually about some epistemic problems related to Sola Scriptura, not a defense of Catholic claims. As such, I don't care to make those defenses.