catholicsphere

Here is a fine example of a former Catholic who got swindled by anti-Catholic literature. However, I don’t want to be accused of the following:

When confronted with the truth concerning the doctrines and practices of their cult, Roman Catholic apologists often attempt to discredit their antagonist by declaring he doesn’t really understand the RCC.

Making this accusation is, in a sense, disingenuous. By using such tactics, the anti-Catholic apologist attempts to stifle explanation and correction of understanding and conclusions drawn. When a Catholic begins to make the case for the doctrine or teaching being objected to, the anti-Catholic apologist will point back to this and say “See?! I told you so!” Such arguments and tactics are not persuasive and the strength of his/her case should be viewed as suspect.

That said, I’ll attempt to explain where the issues raised in “Leaving the Catholic Church, A Letter of Resignation” go off the rails. It is most likely that I will cover each objection in a series of entries, in order to both focus, and shorten the length of, each.
But, before I get into the heart of this letter, I must admit my own skepticism about whether this person was actually a “Director of RCIA”. Qualifications for this position would typically require a theological degree; an advanced degree in most cases. Obtaining that degree would have required in-depth reading, study, exegesis and application of Scripture. Though if he was, in fact, an RCIA Director, I feel that I must pray for a parish who would appoint a person that does not appear to have the qualifications, education and understanding of a catechist, let alone an RCIA program director. I mention this as a matter of honesty, rather than something of ad hominem against the letter writer.

In the parish priest’s response to my letter he did not comment on any of the doctrinal issues that I raised.

If true, that is most unfortunate. If none of the background is true, it can at least be educational to examine the issues raised. Therefore, let’s turn our attention to the content of the letter.

The introduction of this letter clues us in to a problem that underlies the entire position of the letter writers investigations and objections:

The more I have looked at Scripture (and not just at localized passages) I discovered that not all the doctrines taught by the RCC are Scriptural. … I found that many of the doctrines held and taught by the RCC today are not in agreement with the early church, nor are they found in Scripture. Many of them actually contradict Scripture.

Although giving the appearance that he has researched the history and teachings of the early Church, the author mostly relies on the erroneous Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura in his objections.

In the section on Scripture and Tradition, he writes

I have no problem with tradition. Tradition must, however be subordinate to and in agreement with the Scriptures or it is not from God. As I have shown above there are a number of traditions of the RCC that are not in agreement with the Scriptures.

In each section, the accusation is made that this or that doctrine “contradicts Scripture”. Even in the preceding quote we find the opinion that “Tradition must be subordinate to … the Scriptures.” But, according to what? A personal interpretation of Scripture? A selective reading of the early Church Fathers? Both?

The Catholic Church holds that the Bible is the written word of God; while she does not hold that the Bible is the ONLY word of God, for God speaks to us in many ways, not merely through the Bible.

As the word of God, the Church handles the Scriptures as she would the body of Christ; holding it in high esteem.

The Catholic Church teaches that “ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ”; professing that we do encounter Christ Jesus most assuredly in the Biblical texts.

The Catholic Church holds that, in Scripture, there is basis for every Christian doctrine. This basis is either explicit or implicit.

The issue of sola Scriptura really comes down to an issue of authority, not an issue of respect or honor given to the Scriptures. Christians must be clear that differences in views of Scriptural passages are the result of interpretation, not as a result of holding to the “word of God” vs. the “word of men”; for it was the Apostles’ interpretations of Old Testament Scripture that were the points of contention. The issue today is a matter of what *interpretation* one considers to be authoritative.

Many don’t want to accept such a statement, however. Yet, it forms the basis for the entire understanding of the history of the Church.

Even the Scriptures attest to the fact that the writings are not the final authority; and that Scripture is not the only “word of God”:

• Luke 3:2-3 The “word of God” spoken of here is not Scripture, but the inspiration John the Baptist received to go forth and preach the gospel of repentance and preparation for Christ Jesus.
• Luke 4:44; 5:1 Jesus’ preaching, not the Bible, is considered the “word of God”.
• Jn 1:1, 14 Jesus is referred to a “the Word of God”. Obviously NOT a reference to the Bible.
• Acts 4:31 These were “filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness”. What they spoke was considered “the word of God”, not a reference to the Bible here.
• 1 Thess 2:13 This is Paul’s reference to the “word of God” being what was taught by Paul (and the other Apostles and elders). He doesn’t tell them to go solely by Scripture, but to adhere to the oral teachings he had handed on to them.
• Heb 11:3 The “word of God” created the world. Obviously the Bible didn’t create the world.
  These things are all direct references that the “word of God” refers to more than just the Bible; thus is proof positive that the Bible is not the ONLY word of God.

Before looking to study the doctrines and history of the Church, one must understand the basis for authority and look to those authorities in order to resolve conflicts in interpretation.

With that understanding and basis in mind, the next entry will discuss and attempt to resolve the objections raised in the “Scripture and Tradition” portion of the “letter”.

[tags]apologetics, faith, catholic, anti catholic, christian, protestant, doctrine, scripture, sola scriptura, scripture alone, church, religion[/tags]