The Problem with “Scripture Alone”
The Catholic Church teaches that matters of faith and morals are contained in both Scripture and Tradition, that the interpretation of God’s divine truth is entrusted to the Pope, and that the Pope is prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error. Comparatively, some Christian churches look to the Bible as the only source of divine truth and the only authority by which “truth” can be interpreted. Accordingly, any teachings not found in the Scriptures are not part of God’s revelation, and that no person – including the Pope – has the authority to proclaim what is “true” doctrine.
On the surface, the simplicity of this Scripture-only (“sola scriptura” in Latin) approach appears reasonable. Besides, the only alternative would seem to be for a human being to hold this authority – a notion that many people find inconceivable considering mankind’s inclination to sin and corruption.
Furthermore, on the surface, “sola scriptura” is based on sound logic. In the study of logic, the conclusion of an argument is the position for which two or more premises are intended to provide support. A deductive argument is considered “sound” or “valid” if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. For example, consider the following logical argument:
Premise 1: A church’s teachings are based on those in the Bible.
Premise 2: The Bible’s teachings are true.
Conclusion: A church’s teachings are true.
This argument is based on sound logic. So, what exactly is the problem with depending on the Bible alone as one’s rule of faith? The problem might be best illustrated in the form of a question posed to Bible-only believers: “How do you know your church’s teachings are actually true?” In response, the believers may point to a passage in Scripture in an effort to “prove” that their teaching is genuine. However, the same question remains – how do they know their interpretation of that passage is correct – i.e., that they are “imparting the word of truth without deviation” (2 Timothy 2:15)? They might again be tempted to point to the Bible as support, which helps illustrate the circular reasoning inherent to “sola scriptura.” In an effort to break free from this conundrum, the believers may explain (even by ironically citing another Bible passage, in John 16:13) that the Holy Spirit guides their church to the correct interpretation of the Bible. However, digging a little deeper into the implications of this statement will further expose the problem of “sola scriptura.”
Many Bible-only churches claim to receive this unfailing guidance of the Holy Spirit. For example, the church of Christ down the road is confident its teachings are genuine because they believe their interpretation of scriptures is guided by the Holy Spirit. But the Baptist church across the street feels the same way about their own teachings. Which set of teachings contains the whole truth? While this point does not preclude the possibility of a Bible-only church’s teachings from being “correct,” it does call into question the certainty that most Protestant churches place on their ability to correctly extract Biblical truth.
In fact, “sola scriptura” provides no such certainty. At best, a member of a Bible-only church can only hope that their church’s teachings are correct. Yes, the Holy Spirit may be working to steer them toward truth, but there is no guarantee that the church’s positions on a given issue match those of the Holy Spirit. Consider our hypothetical question, “How do you know your church’s teachings are actually true?” The answer, simply and truthfully, is not only “We don’t know,” but “We can’t know.”
This is a far cry from the confidence initially inspired by the logic behind “sola scriptura.” On paper, the conclusion of “sola scriptura” does not require its supporting premises to be factually true in order to be logically sound. But in reality, the argument falls apart when trying to prove that a church’s teachings are in fact based on the Bible.
Why would God leave his people with a blueprint for interpreting and disseminating his divine truth as dubious as “sola scriptura?” Fortunately, He didn’t. Instead, God gifted to us a way of definitively knowing and teaching the fullness of His divine revelation. That gift is the infallibility of the popes. More on that in a future article.
For further reading, see “By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition” by Mark P. Shea.
Lenten Fast and Abstinence – Can The Church Really Require It?
What gives the Catholic Church the authority to require fasting and abstinence? Is it just power hungry, and overstepping its boundaries to bully us into walking lock-step with their commands? Many Catholics and non-Catholics alike may ponder this question. But before diving into an explanation, let’s lay some groundwork first.
Note: This post treats the Lenten practices of the western/Latin/Roman Catholic Church. The practices of the Eastern Catholic Churches typically vary in each rite and will not be discussed in this current post.
First, some definitions. Lenten “abstinence” generally means not eating meat on Ash Wednesday and on each Friday of Lent (for those at least 14 yrs old). Chiefly, Lenten “fast” means eating one full meal and two small meals (which if added together would not exceed the main meal in quantity) on Ash Wednesday and on Good Friday (for those between 18 and 60 years old).
Second, an intentionally provocative and hopefully scandalous admission: the notion of fasting and abstaining from meat for 40 days prior to Easter is NON-BIBLICAL. There is biblical precedence for the usefulness of these practices in general, but nowhere will you find Christ or the Apostles requiring the observance of Lent.
So now what? Does the fact that this practice is not in the Good Book close the book (pun intended) on the issue? Not in the least. Of course, the totality of God’s revelation as taught by Christ and as received by the Apostles from Christ & the Holy Spirit is not limited to the Bible alone – it is also contained in Sacred Tradition. Thus, the mere fact that a teaching is not contained in the Bible does not necessarily mean it is not true. However, that opens a whole other can of worms (the topic of “Sola Scriptura”), worthy of its own blog post (in the future, perhaps)…
Catholics are required to fast & abstain not because the Bible says so, but because the Church says so. We fast & abstain not because the practices are essential to salvation in and of themselves, but because it is essential to yield to the authority of the Church. And this is our main question – where does the Church get the authority to require this? Interestingly, from the Bible.
We find in Sacred Scriptures that the Church is given the power to “bind and loose.” There are a lot of really good apologetical books out there on this topic, but for our purposes here, James Akin provides an excellent concise explanation in his tract “All About Lent” at http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/LENT.HTM. Specifically, Christ says to Peter in Matthew 16:19, “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” And again similarly in Matthew 18:18.
In the Jewish culture of the time, the terms “binding” and “loosing” meant the power to “forbid” and “permit,” held by the Jewish religious leaders (again, see the link to Akin’s article above for great further reading). Jesus gave this same binding/loosing authority to Peter. The Church today, with the Pope as successor to Peter, continues in this authority (the topic of “apostolic succession” is yet another good candidate for its own future blog post). It is through this authority that the Church validly requires the faithful to observe the practices of fasting and abstinence during Lent.
In a future post, I will explore the concepts of “binding” and “loosing” more closely, in relation to Christ’s delegation of the keys of the kingdom to Peter per Matthew 16 above. For now, I pray this post at minimum illustrates to even the most doubtful of readers that the evidence of legitimate Church authority is worthy of consideration and further research.
Why do Catholics Worship Statues?
Have you ever been asked this question by a non-Catholic? Have you ever wondered about it yourself? This seems like one of those topics that many Catholics never bother to think about until it’s “too late”; i.e., when someone asks the question. Many times, the questioner is trying to place the Catholic on the defensive, hoping that he has no good explanation. Then the questioner points to a verse from Scripture indicating that such worship constitutes idolatry, which is clearly forbidden by God. In 30 seconds, the Catholic could be left questioning his faith. This is a very common pattern, and it applies to many topics, not just statue worship.
So how do you deal with this question?
First, and most importantly, realize that the “Why do Catholics Worship Statues” question is a logical fallacy. I’m not an expert in logic or philosophy, but I believe this would be called a “Complex Question” fallacy (see http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/complex-question). Per this link, “the complex question fallacy is committed when a question is asked (a) that rests on a questionable assumption, and (b) to which all answers appear to endorse that assumption.” Specifically, the questioner ASSUMES that Catholics worship statues, and then assumes the Catholic will provide some type of defense for the worship of statues. The questioner then pounces, accusing the Catholic of idolatry.
Even if I’ve mis-identified the fallacy type here, just remember – the assumption that Catholics “worship” statues is false in the first place. It’s a faulty question! Don’t get trapped by this from the start. Whether its a well-intentioned questioner or one that is attacking your Catholic beliefs, assure them from the get-go that Catholics do no “worship” statues.
The next question one might ask is “OK, so you don’t worship statues – so what are you doing with them?”.
The answer is tw0-part. First – understand the difference between “worship” and “venerate.” Only God (and Christ) is due our worship. However, Catholics recognize that many persons from the history of Christianity have lived good, holy lives, worthy of imitation. Yes, it is Christ we alone should try to imitate, but many wonderful examples of other persons making that effort have gone before us. We hold these people in high esteem as role models. Look at what St. Paul says himself at 1 Corinthians 11:1 – “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ”.
Compare this recognition of the example of saints, etc, with things from everyday life – whether a student being recognized at an awards assembly for high grades, or an worker being recognized as “employee of the month.” In both latter examples, the student/employee is being recognized for his efforts and being represented as a role model for others. This is simply what Catholics do when they venerate saints, Mary, etc. The Church recognizes the examples of the saints in it’s yearly calendar – there is no difference between this “saint of the day” notion with the idea of “employee of month.”
Second – statues, religious icons, medals, etc, are used to remind us of those persons they represent. We have images and statues of St. Paul to remind us of his example, and to recognize his efforts to live in Truth. We are not worshiping a statue of St. Paul just as we are not worshiping Paul himself.
Here is a good short article from http://www.CatholicAnswers.com about this question: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/do-catholics-worship-statues. Also, there are many good books about the difference between “worship” and venerate” – I hope to add some references later for further reading.
I hope this short article is helpful – please feel free to leave any questions for discussion.
St. Basil still spot-on 1700 years later
I recently purchased “A Year With the Church Fathers” by Mike Aquilina (available at https://tanbooks.benedictpress.com/index.php/Year-with-Church-Fathers-Patristic-Wisdom-For-Daily-Living) for my wife and I to use as prayer/reading material before bed. Last night, we read the following by St. Basil as Day 5’s entry. Basil lived in the 300’s, but what he says here seems so applicable to modern day, in that it puts what is important in life into perspective. It reminds me of Genesis 3:19 – “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.”
“I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that everywhere, wherever you may be, the least plant may bring to yon the clear remembrance of the Creator. If you see the grass of the fields, think of human nature, and remember the comparison of the wise Isaiah. “All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field.” Truly the rapid flow of life, the short gratification and pleasure that an instant of happiness gives a man, all wonderfully suit the comparison of the prophet. To-day he is vigorous in body, fattened by luxury, and in the prime of life, with complexion fair like the flowers, strong and powerful and of irresistible energy; tomorrow and he will be an object of pity, withered by age or exhausted by sickness. Another shines in all the splendour of a brilliant fortune. and around him are a multitude of flatterers, an escort of false friends on the track of his good graces; a crowd of kinsfolk, but of no true kin; a swarm of servants who crowd after him to provide for his food and for all his needs; and in his comings and goings this innumerable suite, which he drags after him, excites the envy of all whom he meets. To fortune may be added power in the State, honours bestowed by the imperial throne, the government of a province, or the command of armies; a herald who precedes him is crying in a loud voice; lictors right and left also fill his subjects with awe, blows, confiscations, banishments, imprisonments, and all the means by which he strikes intolerable terror into all whom he has to rule. And what then? One night, a fever, a pleurisy, or an inflammation of the lungs, snatches away this man from the midst of men, stripped in a moment of all his stage accessories, and all this, his glory, is proved a mere dream. Therefore the Prophet has compared human glory to the weakest flower.”
The Hexaemeron
Homily V
by St. Basil the Great
Taken from http://www.fisheaters.com/hexaemeron5.html
Humble Beginnings
Dear readers,
This blog will include original material along with quotes/links from other sources related to Catholic Apologetics, the Church Fathers, and general messages of hope. I hope you find this blog challenging and helpful.
Peace!
ProCatholic 