|
The Roman Catholic Church says it never changes; yet it invents new doctrines which are contrary to the Bible / Objections to the Magisterium & Sacred Tradition In this section, let us look at what the Scriptures and the Church Fathers have to say of Sacred Tradition. When one logically thinks through the Protestant doctrines concerning Sola Scriptura, it becomes evident just how illogical they truly are. The teachings which comprise Sola Scriptura say that Scripture is: (1) the sole source of Christian doctrine - Yet how can this be when before any Gospel was written; before any Epistle came forth from the hands of Paul or Peter, James or Jude; the Apostles were already preaching the doctrines of the Faith? And why is it that the very Scriptures that we are told are the sole source, are silent on this very principle? We are told Scripture is inspired and profitable, but how does that equate it to being the sole source of doctrine? Indeed, St. Paul tells us that good works, too, are profitable for men (Titus 3:8); but does that necessitate we believe that good works alone are the source of salvation? If the Bible were the source of all Christian doctrine: 1stly, it would be no Bible but a catechism; 2ndly, its status as such is contradicted by the very fact - a fact that irks the Protestants - that no one of them agree on even the most fundamental teachings of that Bible; for one accepts infant baptism, yet another rejects; one accepts free will, another rejects; one accepts the Trinity, another rejects; and all this they lay at the feet of the Bible. Each claims the Bible teaches their creeds; they thus dare accuse the Scriptures - and also the One Who inspired them - of being contradictory and confused. Also, in order for the Bible to be the sole source of doctrine, it must necessitate that it have been always in existence from the beginning; yet we know that the Canon of Scripture was not set until the 4th century, when such councils as Rome, Hippo and Carthage confirmed those 73 books which comprise our Canon, and this was the one used at Rome. Before these councils affirmed the Canon, in which we find four Gospels, there were 27 gospels that were circulated; how did the Church know which were false? She knew from Tradition, viz, the oral Revelation handed down through the Apostolic Succession. She compared these multitude of gospels to the oral teachings She received from Christ, and judged the former to be in contradiction to the latter. We may also state that the Church was preaching the Faith for circa 400 years before the Bible was compiled, and the first Ecumenical Council, that of Nicaea in Ad 325, already defined dogma afore the Bible's compilation. Lastly, the very Scriptures themselves teach us that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth [1 Tim. 3:15], but the Bible is nowhere called such. Again, it did not exist until much later on. Surely, the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament, and the books of the Old, were already written and thus contained truth, yet they had not heretofore been stamped with ecclesial approbation. Thus, it requires the existence not only of the Church, but of Tradition along with it, so that, moved by the Holy Spirit, the Church could finally set down those written teachings which the same Spirit inspired. We may also end with noting a great pain for the Protestants: that they, who so abuse the Catholic Church and slander Her, must also accept Her approbation for the Bible they hold - or rather, those books still retained after Luther's mutilation of Scripture. They unwittingly accept the very authority they protest against. (2) the sole norm of doctrine - Since we have established that the Bible cannot be the sole source of doctrine, thus also it cannot be the sole norm of doctrine. The norm of doctrine is the Church, who has faithfully preserved God's entire Revelation, both written and oral. We may ask: how does a Protestant find Biblical norm regarding bioethics when the same Bible touches no such topics? Whence did God pronounce on stem-cell research? How can the Bible be the sole norm, when it doesn't even contain all of Divine Revelation, as St. John expressly mentions [John 21:25]? (3) the supreme, infallible and sole authority in the Church - According the Protestant Religion, Christ left infallible teachings to fallible men. But such a thing is absurd, for how would these men know that their interpretation of the Scriptures was the true one? Indeed, as noted above, we see that Protestants disagree with one another using only the Bible alone, showing that its infallible authority cannot be the sole one, for if it is, it is found most wanting; and I would not dare to denounce Scripture to be wanting in any thing. Instead, when God gave us His infallible Revelation He also left with it an infallible judge to properly interpret it, and that infallibility was left with the Roman Church, and exercised by the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops in union with him. We may see, in the civil affairs, how laws are judged and interpreted by judges and other such officials who have the competent authority imposed upon them; for what society would leave its laws to the private judgment of ignorant men? How can it be that even Protestants agree that mere man-made civil laws and constitutions require an equal authority to rightly judge them, yet charge that the Divine Law of Almighty God was left to ignorant men to privately interpret? How can civil laws be judged more fittingly than God's Law?! (4) that every single statement, doctrine, command, of the Bible calls for instant and unqualified acceptance, without the use of reason - This proposition is not only illogical, but also highly dangerous. Firstly, for Scripture is both a product of Divine Reason and human reason; 2ndly, without the use of reason, Our Lord's teachings regarding cutting off one's members that cause us to sin would have to be taken literally, which would necessitate the mutilation of body parts. Yet, we know that Our Saviour asked no such things of, because we use reason to discern the true meaning of His words. We may also note that Luther had an aversion to reason, even going so far as to call it the Devil's handmaid; indeed he had to have such an aversion, for how could one reasonably believe what Luther proposed, or that which other pretended Reformers had divined? Even to our own day, we have many Protestants who accept absurd ideas, because they abandon reason when they interpret the Scriptures, exempli gratia: some Protestants interpret the Heavenly Jerusalem in the Apocalypse as being a literal city which shall descend from the heavens; this city is, in our modern measurements, said to be bigger than the sub-continent of India! Do they really believe such an absurd idea? Indeed they do, and they must abandon reason to accept such. Yet the Church has defined that with the light of natural reason, man can come to know the existence of the Most High; but supernatural faith is required to believe all the doctrines which He commands us to accept. Faith, then, completes what reason begins. We may also ask: why did God endow us with reason, if we are not to use it? If reason must be used to interpret civil laws, then how could it not be used to interpret Divine Law, which same Law contains most weighty and grave matters that pertain to the eternal destiny of men? (5) sufficient, that is, that Scripture has no deficiencies to be supplied by oral tradition, pronouncements of the Roman Pontiff, Bishops, theologians or Councils - Most laughable is that Protestants accept the pronouncements of the aforementioned authorities for their belief in the Trinity, the Canon of Scripture, the Natures of Christ, the Person of the Holy Spirit, etc. If Scripture be sufficient to the degree given it by the Protestants, then where does it define the doctrines thus mentioned? Whence does it speak of the very intricate details of the Holy Trinity? If one asks a Protestant where the doctrines of the Trinity are defined, he would have to admit they were defined by the the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (Ad 325), presided over by Pope St. Sylvester I's legates, and the bishops. So, the Protestant must accept the oral Tradition and pronouncements of the Roman Pontiff, bishops and theologians of an Ecumenical Council; the same which they reject! (6) Perspicuous, that is, that the Scriptures sets forth all the doctrines on Christian faith and life in most clear terms that both the unlearned and learned can understand, and that Scripture needs not wait for any Pontiff, theologian or Council to make clear its teachings, (7) its own authentic and infallible interpreter, that is, no human authority, or even reason, is needed to divine its true sense. (8) That is it is the privilege and duty of all Christians to read and study the Scriptures, (9) That every man can use his private interpretation to come to the knowledge of saving truth. Mark 16:15 - And He said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. - Jesus here does not instruct the Apostles to write, but to preach, that is, to orally announce the Gospel. Any writing is accidental to their mission, not natural to it. Mark 3:14: And he made that twelve should be with him, and that he might send them to preach. - Again, Jesus does not tell the Apostles to write, but to preach. Luke 10:16: He that heareth you, heareth me. - The oral Gospel is preached by Jesus to the Apostles, and from the Apostles to the world. No command to write. Luke 24:47: And that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. - Again, no mention of writing. Acts 15:27 - We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will, by word of mouth, tell you the same things. - So, the Gospel was transmitted by word of mouth, not by writing. Romans 10:17: Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ. - Why doesn't St. Paul mention anything about reading a book? How could he, when so many of his hearers could not read! [1] - 1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6; The imposition of hands to pass on authority comes from the Patriarchs of old, who imposed their hands upon their sons to pass on to them their authority and the blessing of God. In the Church, this imposition of hands takes on the new meaning of passing the Apostolic Authority from one man to another, as a father to his son. Priests and bishops have their authority passed to them by the imposition of hands by other bishops (who have the fullness of the priesthood).
----------------------------------- [2] - 2 Peter 1:20; 2 Peter 3:15-16. ----------------------------------- [3] - The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament says about this verse: Timothy is the second link in a chain of succession that stretches from the apostles of the first century to the bishops of the present day. Having received Paul's authority and mission, he is charged with passing on both the priestly ministry and the apostolic faith to the next generation. Timothy must transmit these traditions in the same way he received them from Paul: through public instruction, the sacramental imposition of hands, and the witness of his life (1:6, 13-14; 3:10; 1 Tim 5:22; 6:20). ------------------------------------- [4] Inter Insigniores, No 4: Another objection is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value. However, the Apostle's forbidding of women to speak in the assemblies (1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Ti 2:12) is of a different nature, and exegetes define its meaning in this way: Paul in no way opposes the right, which he elsewhere recognises as possessed by women, to prophesy in the assembly (1 Cor 11:15); the prohibition solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For Saint Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation (1 Cor 11:7; Gen 2:18-24): it would be difficult to see in it the expression of a cultural fact. Nor should it be forgotten that we owe to Saint Paul one of the most vigorous texts in the New Testament on the fundamental equality of men and women, as children of God in Christ (Gal 3:28). Therefore there is no reason for accusing him of prejudices against women, when we note the trust that he shows towards them and the collaboration that he asks of them in his apostolate. [Emphasis mine] ------------------------------------- [5] - The Ignatius Commentary says about this verse: The teaching that Paul handed over to his readers, whether in writing or by oral instruction. This was the standard against which doctrinal claim (2:5) and moral behaviour (3:6) were to be measured and judged. Even Paul's personal example was a form of apostolic catechesis (3:7-9; 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Tim 1:13) (CCC 75-76, 82). - The apostles did not hand down everything in writing; many unwritten things were handed down as well, and both written and unwritten are worthy of belief. So let us also regard the tradition of the Church as worthy of belief (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on 2 Thessalonians 4). St. John Chrysostom's actual quote on 2 Thess. 2:15: Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the Tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a Tradition, seek no farther.
Comments
|
Archives
April 2024
|
