Catholicism & the Word of God

Continuing the apologetics postings … the following is from about 6 years ago …

    Question: [P]lease give me a concise list of just what the Roman Catholic Church believes is the Word of God. … Exactly what I’d need to buy at the store to keep on hand if I were to be able to really check things out like we are supposed to.

    The Holy Bible (the complete Bible, as affirmed in the late 4th, early 5th centuries). This is the only “product” you can purchase that is considered to contain, without error in any part, the written word of God.

    Now, we must turn out attention to what can help you truly know and understand the written word of God. This list is much longer …

    1. The writings of the early Church Fathers
    2. The decrees and documents of all the Church councils throughout the centuries (the first being recorded in Scripture in Acts 15).
    3. The various main Catechisms published throughout the centuries.
    4. The writings of the Popes, Bishops, [canonized] Saints, Doctors, [approved] Theologians, etc of the Church.

    As we’ve discussed before … the Bible does not, nor does it claim to, contain all that the Apostles, etc taught. From the above items, we can gain insight into the fullness of Apostolic teaching that came both through written and unwritten Tradition.

    Finally, I just want to make a comment regarding: we obviously shouldn’t just trust the Pope or a Priest for their doctrine. I think it is a fairly accurate statement that we shouldn’t “just trust”. But, ultimately we are not doing that, so it is not fair to place that upon Catholics; just as it wouldn’t be fair to place upon Protestants that they “just trust” their Pastor for doctrine and understanding of Scripture. Trust is gained on both sides, where individual doctrine (of a pastor, priest or pope) must line up consistently with universal doctrine, taught not only in the present time, but throughout history; and not only in our local church, but throughout the world.

    I — along with the many Catholics that post here, and across the internet, and many whom I’ve met in real life — know the Scriptures, and know what the Church officially teaches, and has taught throughout the last 2,000 years. When I hear a new pastor or priest speak, I can tell usually whether he is orthodox because I know the teachings, and when I don’t I can check it with official teaching sources.

    But, you may ask, what is an “official teaching source”? My answer is the Church — again, not only today, but throughout the centuries. My assurance of the teaching of the Church universal comes through knowing the historical teachings, succession, etc…seeing it trace back to Christ Jesus Himself. Why do I trust the Church? Because I trust Christ Jesus. He said that He would found a Church that would be full of teachers, etc. that we could trust. If He gave to us these people to guide us, as He promised to guide them, then it stands to reason that they would be sure guides. Do we trust individual teachers blindly? No, and that goes back to my point earlier in this posting about individual teachings lining up with universal teachings.

    These, I believe, are important guidelines the need to be considered. Why trust your pastor? Why trust your priest? Why even trust the Bible? The answers lay not in the Scriptures alone, but in your trust of Christ Jesus, and His promises. Ultimately, you trust the Bible because of your pastor or your priest … and you trust them because you trust Christ Jesus, that He has raised up godly men to serve the Body faithfully. And the criteria for faithful, godly men is found in the doctrine they bring, which is not a matter of their personal opinions and interpretations, but rather of their consistency with all those who came before them, even prior to the establishment of Scripture, bringing the Word of God to the world.

[tags]bible, scripture, sola scriptura, apologetics, faith, catholic, catholicsphere, church, christian[/tags]

3 Responses to “Catholicism & the Word of God”

  1. Hey I guess I will ask some questions on this topic since it is up here. You write:

    “Now, we must turn out attention to what can help you truly know and understand the written word of God. This list is much longer …

    1. The writings of the early Church Fathers
    2. The decrees and documents of all the Church councils throughout the centuries (the first being recorded in Scripture in Acts 15).
    3. The various main Catechisms published throughout the centuries.
    4. The writings of the Popes, Bishops, [canonized] Saints, Doctors, [approved] Theologians, etc of the Church.”

    Why do the writtings of the early church fathers or popes matter?

    I would agree that they are certainly helpful and insightful, however they are not in and of themselves inspired as Scripture. Does it not make sense in such a case to have scripture be more authoratative then the interpretations men gave scripture?

    “As we’ve discussed before … the Bible does not, nor does it claim to, contain all that the Apostles, etc taught. From the above items, we can gain insight into the fullness of Apostolic teaching that came both through written and unwritten Tradition.”

    This statement I found to be the most sticky. It seems like an argument of gaps. We dont have ALL of the apostles teachings THEREFORE we need the teachings of popes and early church figures to be equally our guide in doctrine.

    Also I am confused as to how the writings of various church figures (who themselves never claimed apostalic authority) when put together = the “fullness” of Apostalic teaching?

    I really am trying to just get a handle on what it is you believe and why. Honestly, a lot of these things just seem to me like irrational leaps. I guess because I presuppose sola scriptura.

    Now I am curious about this:

    “Finally, I just want to make a comment regarding: we obviously shouldn’t just trust the Pope or a Priest for their doctrine. I think it is a fairly accurate statement that we shouldn’t “just trust”.”

    It is my understanding that the pope is the “Apostalic Succesor” to Peter. So on what basis can you question him? I mean that’s like questioning Peter…right? Doesn’t the Pope DEFINE universal doctrine? Can Popes err?

    I am not trying to be a little cuss in asking these questions, again I really want to understand from somebody who believes in Catholicism.

    Bob said this on May 21st, 2007 at 11:39 pm

  2. Hi Bob,

    Thanks for your questions. One of the books that I would recommend either purchasing or checking out from your local library (see if they’ll get it if they don’t have it) would be “Not By Scripture Alone” by Robert Sungenis … it covers a lot of ground, and may help fill in the gaps that I leave (mostly because of a lack of time and space). While I don’t agree with all Mr Sungenis’ positions on Catholic doctrine, I do agree with what he’s written on this subject, and it is a wonderfully exhaustive reference.

    You ask:
    Why do the writings of the early church fathers or popes matter?

    I guess the place where I’d start to answer this question is with the Scriptures themselves. In order to get to canon of Scripture we must rely on some authority outside the writings themselves.

    Jesus did not hand a book to the Apostles and say “read this, make copies, distribute it and teach people what it says”. Instead, he taught the Apostles and told them to, in turn, teach others.

    During the course of that teaching, a handful wrote some things down. Because of the testimony of the writings, which agreed with the fuller course of apostolic teaching, these were collected together over time into what we refer to as the New Testament.

    At such time as the church fathers, elders and leaders agreed on the writings to comprise the New Testament (and really the whole of what was to be considered the Christian Bible), the authority of these was not to cease.

    These other writings matter because they give us witness to the mind of the Church. And they fill in gaps in the things that were not written; or provide greater incite and explanation to the things that were written and codified.

    So, that leads into your next question comment on what I seem to be saying:
    We don’t have ALL of the apostles teachings THEREFORE we need the teachings of popes and early church figures to be equally our guide in doctrine.

    First let me point back to what I said above. It is the apostles and disciples who deliver the teaching of the Gospel to the world. It is men given authority, and in turn, they confer authority to others — such as Timothy and Titus, for example. In other words, these came first. The Scriptures came later, and as a result of such teaching.

    Scripture is given pre-eminence by the Church because of who the authors were. The testimony of the early Church fathers, etc who were close in time to the Apostles give further insight and testimony to the understanding of how these teachings were put into practice, defended and further proclaimed in those early periods.

    Later writings and teachings are often clarifications to Apostolic teaching, and guidance on whether future developments are harmonious with the Apostolic teaching.

    For this reason, we have to understand church history in order to understand the justification for some things we see today.

    I want to stop here and I’ll answer you question on the Pope in another posting.

    Matt said this on May 22nd, 2007 at 9:15 am

  3. Bob,

    To answer your questions on the Pope, I think it is important to understand that he’s not like the President of the Catholic Church, in the way we have a President of the United States. Dogmatic proclamations “of the faith” and of moral teaching cannot be changed. For the purposes of reference and instruction of the faithful, Vatican I defined the criteria and circumstances for infallibility.

    So, not all the Pope says and does is “defined” and infallible. Popes can and have err’d, just not when teaching definitively in their official papal office (criteria one), on matters of faith and morals (criteria two) in a way that it is intended to be binding on the whole Church (criteria three).

    Certainly the Pope can be questioned, just as Peter was questioned. When we do question, we should be humble, remain teachable and sincerely listen.

    Matt said this on May 22nd, 2007 at 7:04 pm

Leave a Reply