What is meant by the rule of faith?
There are two ways of understanding the word “faith.”
- The first way is the faith we exercise in order to be saved. Faith, in this sense, is our trust in Jesus.
- The second way is to use faith to refer to all the doctrines which we believe as Christians. When we speak of the “Christian faith” we are using the word in this second sense.
When we speak of the rule of faith, we are using the word faith in the second sense.
What do you mean by the word “rule” in the expression “rule of faith?”
The word “rule” here means the measure or the standard which we use to judge whether a given doctrine is true or false.
Why is this question so important?
Because in any discussion of the truth or falsity of a doctrine, the standard by which we can know this doctrine to be true or false is foundational. No progress at all can be made until this question is resolved.
What are the major disagreements on this point between Christians?
The disagreement is between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Both agree that the voice of God is the infallible rule of faith, but where is this voice to be heard?
- Protestants believe that, in our time, the God speaks to us in the Bible. No other document, institution, or person speaks for God.
- Roman Catholics teach that God speaks to us both in the Bible and in the traditions which they keep and define.
What is tradition?
This has been defined in different ways. Roman Catholics teach that some of what Jesus and the apostles taught was written down while others of it remained unwritten.
- The unwritten traditions have been handed down through the ages from person to person and are defined and protected by the Roman Catholic church.
- The written teachings are preserved for us in the Bible.
Consider the teaching of the Catechism of the Council of Trent (p17):
This [Gospel], of old promised through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, promulgated first with His own mouth, and then commanded it to be preached by His Apostles to every creature as the source at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct. It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Spirit dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.
Also the Catechism of Pius X:
Q34: What is meant by tradition?
A: Tradition is the non-written word of God, which has been transmitted by word of mouth by Jesus Christ and by the apostles, and which has come down to us through the centuries by the means of the Church, without being altered.
Q35: Where are the teachings of tradition kept?
A: The teachings of Tradition are kept chiefly in the Councils’ decrees, the writings of the Holy Fathers, the Acts of the Holy See and the words and practices of the sacred Liturgy.
Q36: What importance must we attach to tradition?
A: We must attach to Tradition the same importance as the revealed word of God which Holy Scripture contains.
Then the Douay Catechism of 1649 (p26):
Q. What is the rule by which the church preserves entire the deposit of Faith and confounds all sectaries?
A. Apostolical traditions or receipt of doctrine by hand to hand from Christ and his apostles.
and finally Bellarmine divided (p149) tradition into three classes:
-
- Traditions given by Christ to the Apostles and not recorded in the Gospels;
- traditions originating with the Apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and not found in the Epistles;
- church usages which have come to be regarded as law in the Roman church.
These quotes show that Roman Catholics do not believe that all the truths of the Christian faith are contained in the Bible.
What then is the Roman Catholic doctrine on this point?
They hold to the following five propositions:
- Jesus and His apostles taught many things under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
- Some of these teachings were written down and are contained in the New Testament.
- Some of these teachings were not written.
- These unwritten teachings have been faithfully preserved by the Roman Catholic church.
- These doctrines remain authoritative and binding on all Christians.
How is it possible that the Roman Catholic church, over a period of 1900 years, has faithfully preserved the unwritten part of the apostolic tradition?
They believe that God supernaturally protects their teaching magisterium from ever losing or corrupting any of these traditions.
What is the Protestant doctrine of tradition?
Protestants believe that the word of God, in whatever way it comes to us, is the infallible rule of faith. In the Old Testament, God spoke directly to His people. In the New Testament and the first centuries of the church, there was a combination of written sources and unwritten traditions by which God ruled His church. In our own day, the Bible alone speaks for God.
Is this what Protestants mean by sola scriptura?
Yes, sola scriptura is Latin for Scripture alone by which Protestants affirm that the only record of God’s revelation we have available to us today is the Bible. Because of this, only these writings are considered to be infallible. They are our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
What misunderstanding has often arisen around this idea?
Some Protestants have become too dismissive of the tradition of Biblical interpretation and have tried to interpret the Bible by themselves without consulting the wisdom of past interpreters. Hodge writes:
Christians do not stand isolated, each holding his own creed. They constitute one body, having one common creed. Rejecting that creed, or any of its parts, is the rejection of the fellowship of Christians, incompatible with the communion of saints, or membership in the body of Christ. In other words, Protestants admit that there is a common faith of the Church, which no man is at liberty to reject, and which no man can reject and be a Christian.
Some have begun using the term nuda scriptura to describe those Christians who have no use for the long tradition of Christian thinking and simply read their Bible as an individual.
What is wrong with this idea?
The problem with this is that every Christian has the ministry of the Holy Spirit. This means that other Christians have also been taught by the Spirit of God to understand Scripture, and we do well to learn from these fellow believers alive or dead. This is why Protestants and Roman Catholics view Christian tradition with such respect.
Where does the Bible teach that every believer has the ministry of the Holy Spirit within him or her?
Jesus told His disciples that there were some things which He was not able to teach them:
I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. (John 16:12)
He then promises to send them the Holy Spirit who will teach them everything they need to know:
But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. (John 16:13-14; cf John 6:45)
The same promise was given on a previous occasion:
I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. (John 14:16-17)
Paul’s letter to the believers in Corinth does not assert the indwelling of the Holy Spirit but assumes it.
Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? (1 Corinthians 3:16)
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? (1 Corinthians 6:19)
He also teaches the Romans that anyone who does not have the Holy Spirit, does not belong to Christ:
However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. (Romans 8:9)
What then are the leading differences between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants on this point?
There are three:
- The Roman Catholics think they are in possession of a body of teachings which really comes from Jesus and the apostles but was never written down. They believe that this body of teachings has been given to them to protect and pass down to the people of God throughout all ages.
- They believe that the pope has the ability to infallibly define both these traditions and the teaching of any specific Bible passage.
- Because of this, Roman Catholics teach that equal respect is to be given to both the Bible and the traditions.
Protestants deny all of these.
From the Roman Catholic perspective, where has God taught this?
They point to Jesus’ words:
I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on His own; He will speak only what He hears, and He will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to Me by taking from what is Mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is Mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is Mine and make it known to you. (John 16:12)
This text teaches that the disciples were not yet ready to receive all the truth that Jesus wanted to teach them. Later, however, the Holy Spirit would come and teach them all these things. This promise was fulfilled in the Roman Catholic church through which the Holy Spirit now teaches the people of God everything they need to know.
What is wrong with Roman Catholic understanding of this text?
The assumption here is that in order for Jesus’ promise to be realized in the church, there must be one institution with the ability to infallibly define and articulate the word of God. The text, of course, says nothing about this, nor is such an inference necessary. God can easily lead His people into the truth without an infallible institution. These verses certainly don’t teach that Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to one institution.
What other texts do Roman Catholics bring in support of their doctrine on this point?
Sometimes, they reference Paul’s second letter to Thessalonica:
But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. (2 Thessalonians 2:13-15)
One Roman Catholic author writes:
The Bible actually denies that it is the complete rule of faith. John tells us that not everything concerning Christ’s work is in Scripture (John 21:25), and Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition that is handed down by word of mouth (2 Timothy 2:2). He instructs us to “stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). We are told that the first Christians “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles” (Acts 2:42), which was the oral teaching that was given long before the New Testament was written and centuries before the canon of the New Testament was settled. This oral teaching must be accepted by Christians as they accepted the written teaching that at length came to them. “He who listens to you, listens to me; he who despises you, despises me” (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his stand in. “Go, therefore, making disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). How was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: “See how faith comes from hearing, and hearing through Christ’s word” (Romans 10:17). The Church would always be available as the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit Christ’s word to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion. Keating, Catholicism, p136.
What is wrong with the Roman Catholic understanding of this text?
This text and others clearly show that the teaching of Paul and the other apostles was both written and unwritten. Where is the necessity of an infallible institution to protect and define these unwritten teachings taught here? Previously, we stated the Roman Catholic doctrine this way:
- Jesus and His apostles taught many things under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
- Some of these teachings were written down and are contained in the New Testament.
- Some of these teachings were not written.
- These unwritten teachings have been infallibly preserved by the Roman Catholic church.
- These doctrines remain authoritative and binding on all Christians.
The texts given above establish the first three of these, but not #4.
If #4 were true, then would #5 also be true?
Yes, every doctrine taught us by God is to be believed by all Christians.
How do Roman Catholics defend the fourth proposition in this list?
They point to the words of Peter:
Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart. For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. For, “All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever.” And this is the word that was preached to you. (1 Peter 1:22)
How does this text show that the Roman Catholic church has faithfully preserved all the unwritten traditions from Jesus and the apostles?
Roman Catholics understand this text to teach that the unwritten teachings of the apostles will endure until the end of time. That this text refers to the unwritten teachings of the apostles is clear because “the word” Peter refers to here is the preached word (see the underlined above).
How should we understand this text?
This text says nothing about the Roman Catholic church and nothing about any infallible institution protecting and defining the truth of God. It simply teaches us that the word of God will endure forever. In the apostles’ time, much of it was unwritten; and, in fact, the very reason for writing it down was to preserve it. Now, many centuries later, the written word of God is the voice of God to us. We have no other document or institution which speaks for God.
Doesn’t Paul hand down a tradition in Acts 20:35 that is not contained in the gospels?
Indeed, he does. Paul quotes Jesus as saying “It is more blessed to give than to receive” which is a word from Jesus not recorded in any of the gospels. This shows how the followers of Jesus kept many of Jesus’ teachings in their memories and never committed them to writing.
Are there other arguments which Roman Catholics make against the Protestant position?
Consider Q562 in the Baltimore catechism:
Q562: How do we show that the Holy Scriptures alone could not be our guide to salvation and infallible rule of faith?
Answer: We show that the Holy Scripture alone could not be our guide to salvation and infallible rule of faith:
-
- Because all men cannot examine or understand the Holy Scripture; but all can listen to the teaching of the Church;
- Because the New Testament or Christian part of the Scripture was not written at the beginning of the Church’s existence, and, therefore, could not have been used as the rule of faith by the first Christians;
- Because there are many things in the Holy Scripture that cannot be understood without the explanation given by tradition, and hence those who take the Scripture alone for their rule of faith are constantly disputing about its meaning and what they are to believe.
What of this first argument?
It’s difficult to see how this argument makes any sense. Here’s the syllogism:
- If most Christians have had very limited or no access to an actual copy of the Bible, then the Bible cannot be our only infallible rule of faith;
- Most Christians have had very limited or no access to an actual copy of the Bible;
Therefore, the Bible cannot be our only infallible rule of faith.
The minor premise is certainly true, but the major premise doesn’t follow at all. The antecedent and consequent are not at all mutually exclusive.
Why would God make the Bible our exclusive authority while also knowing that the majority of Christians would never have access to one.
Don’t forget that the real issue here is hearing the voice of God. God is the infallible Judge of truth; and wherever we hear His voice, we find the infallible rule of faith. This was true for the Old Testament saints, New Testament saints, and today’s believers. When we say that the Bible is our only infallible rule of faith, we are simply making the claim that the voice of God today is only heard in the Bible. We are not aware of any other person, institution, or document that speaks for God. That is why we say sola scriptura.
How would Protestants answer the second objection made in the Baltimore catechism above?
The Baltimore Catechism teaches:
Q562: How do we show that the Holy Scriptures alone could not be our guide to salvation and infallible rule of faith?
Answer: We show that the Holy Scripture alone could not be our guide to salvation and infallible rule of faith:
-
- Because all men cannot examine or understand the Holy Scripture; but all can listen to the teaching of the Church;
- Because the New Testament or Christian part of the Scripture was not written at the beginning of the Church’s existence, and, therefore, could not have been used as the rule of faith by the first Christians;
- Because there are many things in the Holy Scripture that cannot be understood without the explanation given by tradition, and hence those who take the Scripture alone for their rule of faith are constantly disputing about its meaning and what they are to believe.
What is this argument?
Again, this argument states an obvious truth but then draws a conclusion from it which does not follow. Here’s the syllogism:
- If the Old Testament people of God did not have the New Testament, then the Bible cannot be our only infallible rule of faith;
- the Old Testament people of God did not have the New Testament;
Therefore, the Bible cannot be our only infallible rule of faith.
Assuming we understand this argument correctly, we can agree that the minor premise is true. This argument runs into the same problem as the previous.
What about the last argument?
Q562: How do we show that the Holy Scriptures alone could not be our guide to salvation and infallible rule of faith?
Answer: We show that the Holy Scripture alone could not be our guide to salvation and infallible rule of faith:
-
- Because all men cannot examine or understand the Holy Scripture; but all can listen to the teaching of the Church;
- Because the New Testament or Christian part of the Scripture was not written at the beginning of the Church’s existence, and, therefore, could not have been used as the rule of faith by the first Christians;
- Because there are many things in the Holy Scripture that cannot be understood without the explanation given by tradition, and hence those who take the Scripture alone for their rule of faith are constantly disputing about its meaning and what they are to believe.
Many Bible passages are difficult to understand; shouldn’t believers lean on the church for help with these passages?
First, what is meant here by “church?” Is the question asking if believers should consult their pastors for help with difficult Bible passages? Of course, this is true. In fact, believers should look to the church for help with the many passages which they think they do understand. To conclude from this, however, that we need an infallible institution to define the Bible’s teaching is a non-sequitur.
The Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. The vast majority of Christians today do not understand these languages. Are we not then dependent on the church to provide us with reliable translations?
Clearly, Christians need scholarship and the help of their pastors to rightly understand the Bible. This includes making accurate Bible translations and commentary on these texts. To conclude from this that God speaks infallibly through the Roman Catholic church is a non-sequitur.
So you admit then that some kind of teacher is needed if the laity are going to rightly understand the Bible?
Yes and this is why God gives the Holy Spirit to every believer and why He gives us the ministry of elders and teachers to help us understand and apply the Bible correctly. Even so, there are still Bible passages the true meaning of which continues to elude scholars both within and without the church.
Do you not mean something different here by “tradition” than what Roman Catholics mean?
True, by tradition here I mean to refer to all biblical scholarship, theologians, and philosophers, pagan and Christian, ancient and contemporary; in a word, the entire history of Bible interpretation. The Roman Catholics understand tradition to be their church’s magisterium, but where has God taught us this? The Roman Catholic magisterium is just a small part of Christian interpretation of the Bible.
Is not some human authority necessary to resolve disputes amongst Christians on how to interpret the Bible?
Whether it is necessary or not depends on what God teaches us.
Is there no need for authority in the Christian church then?
There is a need for authority in the church because the Bible clearly teaches us about the offices which are in the church. The elders especially have the mandate to protect the sound interpretation of Scripture. Both Protestants and Roman Catholics agree that the Bible is God’s infallible revelation to mankind. The question is, who or what governs the interpretation of this text? Thousands of sects and Christian denominations claim to know what the Bible teaches, and they often contradict each other. Who determines which is correct and which isn’t? This is the question. Cardinal Newman writes (§15):
Surely then, if the revelations and lessons in Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is idiomatic and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs “obiter”, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligation?
How do the various bodies of Christians resolve this question?
Protestants teach that while the Bible is the supreme authority (prima scriptura), tradition is needed to help believers understand it properly. This tradition is not, however, infallible. Only the Bible is infallible. Our interpretations of Scripture will always be fallible even though they might be highly authoritative. Roman Catholics teach that their magisterium ultimately determines the proper interpretation of Scripture and, under certain circumstances, this decision is infallible.
So the difference appears to be regarding infallibility then?
Yes, that is correct.
Why do Roman Catholics insist that their magisterium is infallible?
Because this is the only effective way to achieve unity in the church. If someone refuses to agree with the pope (the head of the magisterium who possesses, on certain occasions, the charism of infallibility), they are, in essence, refusing to agree with God Himself.
What do you mean by charism?
Roman Catholics mean by charisms what Protestants mean by spiritual gifts.
Don’t creeds and confessions function as a kind of magisterium in Protestant churches?
They do. Baptist and Independent churches have doctrinal statements; Presbyterian churches have the Westminster Standards; the continental Reformed churches have the three forms of unity. The clergy in these churches sign their agreement with the teaching of these statements.
Sounds like both Roman Catholics and Protestants have their magisteriums; what is the difference?
The difference is that Baptists, Presbyterians, and Reformed churches do not regard their magisterium as infallible.
Why do Roman Catholics believe that a magisterium has to be infallible in order for it to be effective?
They think that it is useless to have an infallible document (the Bible) without an infallible interpreter. If we once grant a fallible interpreter, then it makes no difference whether the standard be infallible or not. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
But even with an infallible interpreter, is there not eventually going to be a fallible interpretation?
Yes, Roman Catholics have simply moved the weakest link down a step. The Protestant has a fallible interpretation of an infallible document. The Roman Catholic has a fallible interpretation of an infallible interpretation of an infallible document. The result is the same as can be seen in the vast variety of differing theologies in the Roman church. Plantinga writes:
The doctrine of papal infallibility can serve as a reminder that a proper respect for tradition as helpful for reading Scripture should not lead us to forget that we must distinguish between good and bad tradition. In other words, tradition can be mistaken. But if we are ever to pronounce it mistaken, we must have some yardstick or criterion. That yardstick, of course, is Scripture. One way to express what it means, that Scripture is the norm, is to think of it as our interpretive anchor. Tradition operating on its own represents a series of interpretations, which in turn need to be interpreted until we wind up with interpretations of interpretations of interpretations. The result of all this interpretation is that we drift ever farther away from our moorings, just as a story retold by person after person tends to change. But if Scripture is the ultimate norm for tradition, it can serve as an anchor. We do not escape the necessity of interpretation, but we keep interpreting the same source, i.e. the purest text of Scripture. This insistence on retaining the source is part of what is meant by the sola scriptura principle. (Contending For the Faith, 72-73)
How does the Roman Catholic magisterium claim to preserve truth and unity?
By infallibly interpreting the apostolic tradition. The catechism of Pius X asks:
Q31. Through which means can we know the true meaning of the Holy Scripture?
Answer: We can only know the true meaning of Holy Scripture through the Church’s interpretation, because she alone is secure against error in that interpretation.
How much of Scripture has been infallibly interpreted by the Roman Catholic magisterium?
Surprisingly, the Roman Catholic magisterium has made no authoritative interpretations of 99% of the Bible. The Council of Trent interpreted John 3:5 and John 20:23, and Vatican I interpreted Matthew 16:18 and John 21:15-17 (although Roman Catholic theologians continue to debate whether these councils actually meant to give infallible interpretations of these texts (Jerome Biblical Comm. 71:84-87) Fact is, the magisterium has produced volumes of theological definition but very little, if any, in the way of biblical commentary. Pope Leo XIII clearly asserts in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus that some passages of Scripture have been definitely and dogmatically defined but what passages these are is unclear even to Roman Catholic theologians.
By this most wise decree [referring to a previous quote of the council of Trent] the Church by no means prevents or restrains the pursuit of Biblical science, but rather protects it from error, and largely assists its real progress. A wide field is still left open to the private student, in which his hermeneutical skill may display itself with signal effect and to the advantage of the Church. On the one hand, in those passages of Holy Scripture which have not as yet received a certain and definitive interpretation, such labors may, in the benignant providence of God, prepare for and bring to maturity the judgment of the Church; on the other, in passages already defined, the private student may do work equally valuable, either by setting them forth more clearly to the flock and more skillfully to scholars, or by defending them more powerfully from hostile attack. Wherefore the first and dearest object of the Catholic commentator should be to interpret those passages which have received an authentic interpretation either from the sacred writers themselves, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost (as in many places of the New Testament), or from the Church, under the assistance of the same Holy Spirit, whether by her solemn judgment or her ordinary and universal magisterium – to interpret these passages in that identical sense, and to prove, by all the resources of science, that sound hermeneutical laws admit of no other interpretation. In the other passages, the analogy of faith should be followed, and Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. §14
If Roman Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit infallibly guides their magisterium’s decisions, then why don’t they resolve the meaning of some of the more difficult texts in Scripture (e.g. Romans 9; 1 Corinthians 15:29; 1 Peter 3:19)?
This is another of those questions that Roman Catholics persistently fail to answer. The truth is, that the Roman Catholic church is just as reliant on sound grammatical and historical exegesis as anyone.
Have Roman Catholics changed their thinking on this issue?
It’s hard to say. Most contemporary Roman Catholics have turned away from what is some times called the two source theory. The two source theory is what we explained above. Contemporary Roman Catholics teach that there is one body of truth all of which is contained in the Bible and all of which is contained in the unwritten tradition. It’s not two sources of revelation but two modes or two ways the word of God comes to us. Dei Verbum, from Vatican II, says:
10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)
But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.
Is this an improvement on the earlier understanding?
Yes, it is, but it brings the Roman Catholic into a terrible problem. Previously, the Roman Catholic teachers could appeal to tradition any time they taught a doctrine which was not contained in the Bible. The Marian dogmas and the veneration of images, for example, are not taught anywhere in the Bible. On the traditional understanding of tradition, this was no problem. Roman Catholic teachers could simply explain that the doctrine in question was one of the traditions handed down from the time of the apostles. It need not be found in the Bible at all. Now, however, this way of thinking is no longer possible. If all truths are contained in the Bible, then how can many Roman Catholic dogmas be explained?
What other problem is there in the claim that the Roman Catholic magisterium is infallible?
The greatest problem for any church making this claim is that it immediately cuts itself off from any possibility of the word of God reforming or correcting it. Karl Barth has made this clear. How can a church be corrected and judged by the word of God if it reserves to itself the right to infallibly interpret it? “If the word of God is addressed magisterially to the church, how can the church hear this magisterial word if she seeks in every way to control it? How does the Roman Catholic church concretely and truly subject herself to the Christian Scriptures in such a way that a truly judgmental word can be heard? What structure or structures within the Roman Catholic church can she show which prevents the suffocation of the word of God and on the other hand permits it to run a free course and correct the church?” source It appears that the Roman Catholic church is answerable only to itself.
Back to the unity issue. Evidently, the Protestant magisteriums are worthless since there are so many Protestant denominations. Are not the Protestant churches in serious breach of the biblical command that churches be one or united?
First, we must carefully understand what kind of unity the Bible makes a mark of the true church, see here.
In light of this, it seems that the Bible would play a much smaller role in the piety of Roman Catholics than is the case in Protestant circles.
Yes, this is true. This has been one negative result of the Roman Catholic church’s teaching on this subject. The reading and study of the Bible can be neglected by the laity since they are taught that the reading of the Bible is not necessary and could even be harmful. Consider Q561 of The Baltimore Catechism:
Question: Must we ourselves seek in the Scriptures and traditions for what we are to believe?
Answer: We ourselves need not seek in the Scriptures and traditions for what we are to believe. God has appointed the Church to be our guide to salvation and we must accept its teaching as our infallible rule of faith. [note: The Catechism of Pius X has a similar Q&A but adds “…however its reading is very useful and recommended to all.”]
Now if children are being taught this, no wonder the Bible is neglected. In addition to this, the Index of Forbidden Books, issued by Pope Pius IV in 1559 teaches:
Since experience teaches that, if the reading of the Holy Bible in the vernacular is permitted generally without discrimination, more damage than advantage will result because of the boldness of men, the judgment of the bishops and inquisitors is to serve as guide in this regard. Bishops and inquisitors may, in accord with the counsel of the local priest and confessor, allow Catholic translations of the Bible to be read by those of whom they realize that such reading will not lead to the detriment but to the increase of faith and piety. The permission is to be given in writing. Whoever reads or has such a translation in his possession without this permission cannot be absolved from his sins until he has turned in these Bibles. (Cited in Cambridge Medieval History, section written by W. H. Hutton, edited by H. M. Gwatkin and J. P. Whitney, (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1967) 11:247.)
All are agreed that we need to find the voice of God, but it seems that the Roman Catholic must assume sola scriptura in order to become Roman Catholic.
This objection has been made to the Roman Catholic position on this question. In the past, it was called the popish circle; see Wylie p246; Milner p104.
State this objection.
If you ask a Roman Catholic why he believes his church is that institution to which Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to be the infallible preserver and definer of the truth, he will point to various passages from the Bible to prove this. We gave those texts above. If we ask this same Roman Catholic why we should believe the Bible to be true, he will tell us that it is true because the Roman Catholic church has identified these books as inspired by the Holy Spirit. Clearly, he uses the Bible to prove the truth of the church and the church to prove the truth of the Bible. Cunningham puts it this way (p154):
We do not believe in the infallibility of any Church in the popish sense and, least of all, in the infallibility of the Church of Rome, and we can never admit her claim unless it be clearly established from the word of God. But Papists commonly allege that it is only from the testimony of the Church that we can know certainly what is the word of God and what is its meaning; and thus, they are inextricably involved in the sophism of reasoning in a circle, that is they profess to prove the infallibility of the Church by the authority of Scripture while at the same time they establish the authority of Scripture and ascertain its meaning by the testimony of the Church which cannot err. They have no clear and independent ground or first principle on which they can erect an argument either for the authority of the Scriptures or for the infallibility of the Church. But men cannot reason together unless they have some principles in common; and therefore, if they really wish to convince Protestants of the infallibility of the Church, they must even at the expense of some inconsistency condescend to establish it from the sacred Scriptures all the statements of which are admitted by both parties to be true.
James Wylie (p248):
It [the Roman Catholic church’s infallibility] is not then a self-evident truth; and seeing it is not self-evident, we must demand proof. It is usual with the Church of Rome to send us first to the Scriptures. We search the Scriptures from beginning to end but can discover no proof of the infallibility; and when we come back to complain of our bad success, we are told that it was impossible we could fare otherwise that we have been using our reason than which we cannot possibly commit a greater crime, reason being wholly useless in discovering the true sense of Scripture and that the sense of Scripture can be discovered only by infallibility. Thus the Romanist is back again into his circle. We are to believe the infallibility because the Scriptures bid us, and we are to believe the Scriptures because the infallibility bids us and out of this circle the Romanist can by no means conjure himself.
Francis Patton puts the same argument somewhat differently;
Suppose a young man is seeking to know where the true church is to be found. To what disinterested authority shall he appeal? To the Bible? But how then shall he interpret the Bible? Should he ask a Protestant minister? No, for he would be biased. Shall he ask a Roman Catholic priest? No, for we know what his answer would be. What shall he do then? He must read Scripture for himself and come to his own conclusion. Thus, in order to determine whether he should be Protestant or Roman Catholic, he has to act on the principle that the Bible is the only rule of faith. Hence we see, that a man must become a Protestant before he can become Roman Catholic. (Fundamental Christianity, 134-135)
and finally John Owen (p507);
[Roman Catholics] say the Scripture hath its authority from the church, I ask, How shall I know that there is a church? For if I be one that own no such thing as the Scripture (which the church is persuading me to believe), withal I own no such society as the church; and how will they prove there is such an one, but by the Scripture? For I, who am supposed to acknowledge no church, do acknowledge no authority it hath, and shall not take its own word. And yet if I grant there be a church, how shall I know that such a company of men as pretend to be the church are really so? I shall not take their own testimony; I am not satisfied in their being witnesses to themselves. And if they will prove themselves to be the church by the Scripture, then either the Scripture must have authority, as to me, before the church, or else they prove one obscure thing by another. If they say there be certain signs and marks of the church inherent in it, by which it may be known, — alas! I know not those marks but by the Scripture, which describes the church. If they say the Spirit witnesseth by those marks that this is the church, why may not I say the same of the Scripture; and so, that be known without the testimony of the church to be the word of God, as well as the church to be the church of God? And yet, after all this, granting this society of men to be the church, how shall I know that this church is infallible? And if I know it not to be so, I am not so mad as to build my faith upon its authority. If they say, “Because it is governed by the Holy Spirit,” how shall I know that? for it is not obvious to me that it is. If they say, “Because Christ hath promised that it should,” I ask, Where? where can it be but in the Scripture? Sure, then, the Scripture must be owned, and have its authority, as to me, or their proof is invalid, and they do but trifle instead of arguing.