‍ 

Dialogue on the Relationship Between 

Church and Bible

 

Does the Catholic Church believe itself to be 

superior to Scripture?

 

Gary Hoge

 

The argument goes something like this

1 - The magesterium defines Scripture and Tradition

2 - The magesterium then infalliblly interprets Scripture and Tradition

3 - So ultimate authority would then lie with the magesterium and not Scripture and Tradition on which authority is said to rest.

 

Now just substitute “Protestant X” for “magisterium”:

 

1 - Protestant X defines Scripture (meaning, he’ll decide which books he accepts)

2 - Protestant X then interprets Scripture

3 - So ultimate authority would then lie with Protestant X and not Scripture on which authority is said to rest.

 

Not exactly, my friend. Protestant X doesn’t claim infallibility.

 

So? He claims the authority to interpret Scripture. Therefore, according to the bogus argument above, the ultimate authority lies with him and not with Scripture.

 

We all believe our interpretations are correct; otherwise we would not hold to them, right?

 

Precisely my point. Everyone believes himself to be inerrant. If we thought we had misinterpreted some passage of Scripture, obviously we’d adopt a different interpretation. So both Rome and Protestant X believes its interpretation is correct, but neither believes it is superior to the Scripture it interprets.

 

I believe my interpretation are correct and yes I believe the Holy Spirit guides me and give me understanding. This is clearly biblical ( according to my interpretation :-) ). However, neither Protestant X or I would claim infalliblilty.

 

Again, so what? That just means you think the Holy Spirit approves of your interpretation, but you’re not sure. We think the same thing, only we’re sure.

 

Rome is superior to Scripture, because she determines what Scripture is and she alone can infallibily interpret Scripture. How can Scripture be considered on equal par with that?

 

Pretend for a moment that the Holy Spirit made me an infallible interpreter of Jesus’ words. Whenever Jesus said something, I would understand what he meant. Would that make me superior to Jesus?

 

There’s still a difference. Authority does not mean infallibility. Therefore, Protestant X can be corrected by Scripture. However, the RCC can never be corrected, because it is a law unto itself.

 

If you get it right the first time, you don’t need to be corrected. This doesn’t mean you’re superior to Scripture, it just means you understood it correctly the first time.

 

As the argument says, if Rome alone infallibily defines both Tradition and Scripture, if Rome alone can infallibily interpret both Tradition and Scripture, then how can they be equal?

 

Non-sequitur. Both Rome and Protestant X interpret Scripture. Both believe they are inerrant (i.e., they haven’t erred). The only difference is that Protestant X believes he hasn’t erred because he’s smart; Rome believes it hasn’t erred because God won’t let allow it to.

 

If you determine what Scripture is, what Tradition is, and you alone can only infallibiliy interpret them both how is Scripture equal to that?

 

I’m afraid you’ve lost me. How does the ability to know what Scripture is, and to understand its message, make one superior to Scripture?

 

I heard many RCs refer to Scripture many times as only a dead book, without an interpreter. I’ve also been told by RCs on this board that Scripture is not an authority. Do you agree with that assessment?

 

Scripture is a book. It is words on paper. Clearly, unless you read it, it won’t do you any good. Obviously, when you read it, you interpret it. If you didn’t read it or interpret it, what good would it do you?

 

As for Scripture not being an authority, I disagree. Of course it’s an authority. But it’s an authority that presents its teaching exactly the same way every time, and it can’t sit up and say, “Hey, you’re misinterpreting me!”

 

Rome believes more than inerrancy she believes in infallibility.

 

Infallability guarantees inerrancy. If you can’t err, then it follows that you haven’t erred.

 

Furthermore, I don’t think Protestant X believes he hasn’t erred in anything.

 

Really? If you asked him to complete this sentence: “I believe I am currently misinterpreting the following passages of Scripture _________” which parts do you think he’d say he’s gotten wrong?

 

Well, when I say superior I’m talking about superior in authority.

 

Rome specifically denies that it is superior to Scripture. It says, “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 86). I hope you’re not going to try to tell the Church what it really believes.

 

Rome claims that she determines what is Scripture, therefore Scripture is whatever Rome says it is.

 

Okay, how do you know what Scripture is? None of the New Testament books (except Revelation) claim to be the Word of God, so how do you know they are? How do you know that God inspired Paul’s private letter to Philemon, for example, and that he intended for you to be reading it today as the Word of God?

 

I have a number of reasons for believing the Bible is the Word of God.

 

And because you use these reasons to determine what Scripture is, does that make you superior to Scripture?

 

I use history, tradition, and the internal witness of the Scriptures themselves. I believe God guided the Church to recognize what he determine was the Scriptures.

 

But when Rome claims exactly that – that God guided her to recognize His writings – you say Rome is superior to Scripture. I don’t get it.

 

However, Rome claims that she determines what is Scripture, not that God determines it and the Church only recognizes it.

 

Not true. God determined the canon of Scripture when he inspired certain men to write certain books. Rome only claims that her decision recognizing those books was protected by the Holy Spirit and was therefore not wrong. The First Vatican Council specifically said:

 

These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church (Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, chapter 2, paragraph 7, July 18, 1870).

 

Scripture is Scripture not because the Church declares it to be so, but because it has God as its author.

 

Therefore, I ask is Scripture what Rome determined it would be or is Scripture what God determined it be with the Church recognizing it?

 

The latter. God inspired certain books, and with the authority given to it by God the Church identified those books. We believe that God did not allow the Church to screw that up and identify the wrong books.

 

Rome claims that she infallibly interpret Scripture, therefore Scripture means whatever Rome says it means.

 

Sounds a lot like “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” (Matt. 16:19).

 

Rome claims the same things in reference to Oral Tradition. Now maybe you can tell me what authority Scripture has and how is it equal to that of the RCC?

 

Scripture is the inspired Word of God. The Church is the servant of the Word, not its master. The Church was created by God and was entrusted with the task of proclaiming the Gospel to the world and making disciples of all nations until her Lord returns.

 

I agree that the words [of Scripture] have to be read, but at that point they are not just ordinary words wouldn’t you say?

 

Quite.

 

It seems to me that you’re leaving out the fact that the Word of God is active, alive, and Spirit. Yes, its the same Words every time, but you can read the same Scripture and get a different perspective. Also you can read another part of the Scriptures that can shed light on a previous perspective and in that way show you that you are indeed misinterpreting.

 

Sure, but that obviously hasn’t been sufficient to bring about the unity for which Christ prayed, has it?

 

Neither has the infallible Bishop in Rome been able to bring the unity about and that is one of the reasons the charism was supposedly given to the Pope, correct? If so, it seems that the gift is not working out as God planned wouldn’t you say?

 

In what way is unity lacking among faithful Catholics? We belong to the same visible Church, worship at the same Table, and assent to the same teachings.

 

Well, the unity our Lord prayed for was not just faithful Catholics but all true believers.

 

And the means he instituted for achieving that unity was an authoritative Church to which he commanded His followers to listen, unless they wanted to be treated as tax collectors and sinners (cf. Matt. 18:17).

 

Therefore, unless you believe only faithful Catholics are true believers there has been a lot of disunity among believers. Furthermore, this disunity occurred in spite of the fact that charism of infallibility was supposedly given to maintain the purity and the unity of the church.

 

Infallibility only guarantees that the teaching of the Church is true; it can’t guarantee that people will submit to it. My point is that there is unity among those who submit to the Church, and disunity among those who don’t. To say that this disunity proves that the Catholic system doesn’t work is like saying that seatbelts don’t work because people who don’t wear them get hurt.

 

I agree infallibility guarantees inerrancy, however inerrancy does not guarantee infallibility.

 

Of course. On occasion even I have been inerrant, but I would laugh heartily if anyone suggested I was infallible.

 

Therefore, that was my point, that is infallibility is more than inerrancy.

 

I never disagreed with that.

 

Hmmm ... you didn’t really tell me what authority Scripture has and how is it equal to all that you have claimed for Rome above? You’ve mentioned some of the great authority that the Church has above, however all you have said about the Scriptures is that it is the Word of God. What authority does the Scripture has that makes it equal in authority to Rome?

 

I’m sorry, I thought it was clear that if Scripture is the Word of God – which it is – it has complete authority. Whatever it says is true; whatever it commands must be obeyed; whatever it forbids must be avoided. God instituted the Church in order to safeguard and proclaim this message throughout history.

 

Now here is where I think your theory will disagree with your practice, because infallible Rome has made statements that don’t jive with infallible Scripture.

 

That’s a charge that is ever so much easier to make than to prove. I’m sure that Rome has said things that conflict with your interpretation of Scripture, but can you prove that your interpretation is the correct one?

 

Maybe you can show me where I’m wrong. Rome tells you that you cannot use your private judgement on matters she has dogmatically defined. However, in Galatians 1 we have the Scriptures telling us to not only reject the message of an Apostle, but also the message from an Angel from heaven if it does not agree with the Gospel.

 

In light of this verse, do you use your private judgment to evaluate Paul’s teachings, or do you automatically accept all of them?

 

Furthermore, you have 1 Thess. 5:21 tell you to test all things and hold on to the good. How can these things be accomplished with using private judgement? In the end, whom do you submit to Rome or the Scriptures.

 

I submit to both.

 

Thanks for the dialogue, its a pleasure to have discussion with you.

 

Same here.

 

I see why Tim Enloe thought so highly of you. I tend to easily get a little upset or disgusted on this board, but all of my dialogue with you so far has been extremely pleasant, even though we disagree a lot.

 

I agree. See? We don’t always disagree. :-) I guess it seems like we disagree a lot because we only talk about the things we disagree on. But I always try to remember that you’re my brother in Christ and that we have so much more in common than the few (but important) things that separate us.

 

Also, I may sometimes say things in reference to the RCC that may not be exactly correct and instead of you biting my head off, you correct me in a respectful way. Thanks a lot!

 

You’re welcome. It’s easy to take that approach with you because it’s obvious that you’re a good and sincere person who’s just been misinformed about a few things.

 

Well as you can probably tell, I was assuming the RCC holds a position that you deny the Church holds. That is the RCC determines what is Scripture and not that she only witnesses to what Scripture is.

 

I’m glad I was able to clear that up.

 

I’ve heard this argument so many times from RCs I assumed that is what you believed.

 

Terminology might be tripping you up here. When you say “the RCC determines what is Scripture” you apparently mean “the RCC, rather than God, decides which books will be considered Scripture.” But when a Catholic says “the RCC determines what is Scripture,” he means, “the Church identifies which books God inspired, and declares with authority that these books are Scripture.”

 

I wasn’t claiming that Rome recognizes Scripture, but that she determined what was and was not Scripture.

 

Right, and I assumed you were using “determined” as a synonym for “discerned,” but apparently you weren’t. I’m glad we got that cleared up.