The Rule of Faith – Being Taught that We may Teach

Table of Contents

Introduction

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 or fides qua creditur. 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 or fides quae creditur. 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, we first have to agree on what standard we are going to use to make this judgment. No progress at all can be made until this question is resolved.

Where is the disagreement on this point amongst Christians?

The disagreement is between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Roman Catholics claim that they are in possession of a body of truths which came from Jesus and the apostles and which were never committed to writing. They call this “tradition” which they accept as an equal authority with the written word of God contained in the Bible. Protestants do not accept this claim and limit God’s word to the Bible. Hence, the term sola scriptura, which is a term Protestants use for the idea that in our time, God only speaks to us in the Bible. Wiseman (p60):

By the unwritten word of God, we mean a body of doctrines which in consequence of express declarations in the written word we believe not to have been committed, in the first instance, to writing but delivered by Christ to his Apostles and by the Apostles to their successors. We believe that no new doctrine can be introduced into the Church but that every doctrine which we hold has existed and been taught in it ever since the time of the Apostles; having been handed down by them to their successors, under the only guarantee on which we receive doctrines from the Church, that is, Christ’s promises to abide with it forever, to assist, direct, and instruct it and always teach in and through it. So that, while giving our implicit credit and trusting our judgment to it, we are believing and to the express teaching and sanction of Christ himself.

Bible

What does the Bible teach on this subject?

The Bible teaches us that there is a body of literature which is inspired by God; see here.

Why is this important for our understanding of the rule of faith?

Because God is the infallible Judge of what is true or false. Wherever we hear His voice, we are hearing the truth. Whatever documents are inspired, these are the documents which bring us the voice of God, and it is to these documents that we submit all questions of faith and life. Protestants believe that the voice of God is heard in the Bible alone; this is the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.

Was everything Jesus taught written down?

Certainly not. Jesus told us that He did many miracles which were not recorded in the gospel of John. (John 20:30-31) John closes his gospel with this remark:

This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. (John 21:24-25)

What about the apostles; was all their teaching committed to writing?

We must assume that, just as not all Jesus’ teachings were written, neither were the apostles’.

So there was, in the time of the early church, a body of truths which originated with Jesus or the apostles and which remained unwritten?

Yes, these are sometimes called oral traditions. The Jews also had their written and unwritten traditions which some claimed went back to Moses himself; see Oesterley p50 and p423.

Do the Roman Catholics claim to have these truths in their possession?

Yes, Roman Catholics hold to the following 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 remained unwritten.
These unwritten teachings have been faithfully preserved by the Roman Catholic church.
These doctrines remain authoritative and binding on all Christians.

Protestants agree with the first three of these; they reject last two.

How can this disagreement be resolved?

This is difficult to answer because there is a disagreement on the rule of faith. Protestants will immediately turn to the Bible; Roman Catholics also accept the Bible but will also draw doctrines from their tradition. Protestants deny that these traditions are truly apostolic.

Since we all agree that the Bible is infallible, can’t we start the discussion there?

Roman Catholics have a problem here. They rely on their church to provide them with the canon of Scripture, but they rely on Scripture to identify the true church.

This sounds like circular reasoning.

Indeed it is; Protestants have suggested this for centuries. In fact, it was called the popish circle; see Wylie p246; Milner p104.

Explain this more.

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. 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. This is circular reasoning; the Roman Catholic 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.

How do Protestants avoid this circle?

Protestants do not believe that the church has decided which books of the Bible make up the canon. Protestants believe that the early church, over a long and gradual process, came to recognize which books were inspired and which weren’t; see here. Bruce (p14):

One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa, at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397, but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities.

Wiseman, a Roman Catholic cardinal, avoids (p62-65) this circle by first taking the gospels as mere historical records.

By what process of reasoning, do Protestants arrive at their understanding of the rule of faith?

Protestants simply ask the obvious question, what book, document, institution, or person speaks for God? Wherever the voice of God is to be heard, there we find the infallible measure of truth.

Well clearly the Roman Catholic church makes this claim for itself.

True enough, but now they must make good this claim. Why should we accept this claim that God speaks through the institution of the Roman Catholic church?

How would they make good this claim?

When Jesus came to earth, He also claimed to speak for God, but He made good His claim by the numerous (John 20:30-31) and public miracles which He did. (John 3:2) We would expect something similar from any person or institution that claims to be the voice of God.

But Roman Catholics teach that God gave the church the responsibility to teach and preserve the truth. Therefore, we must submit to the church.

This is true; let’s now turn to these passages to see if they teach what is claimed.

Matthew 16:18

What is the first passage the Roman Catholic church uses to demonstrate her claim that God has made her the source and measure of truth?

The one text which is, by far, of the greatest importance for the Roman Catholic church, is Matthew 16:18. Schaff (p301): “This passage was at all times taken as an immovable exegetical rock for the papacy. The popes themselves appealed to it, times without number, as the great proof of the divine institution of a visible and infallible central authority in the church.” In this passage, Jesus is putting the ultimate question to His followers. It’s the question of the ages; who is Jesus?

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ. (Matthew 16:13-20)

To this question, Peter gives the wonderful twofold answer:

“You are the Christ” showing Jesus’ identity as the great expected Messiah.
“Son of the living God” showing that Jesus really is on a mission from the Father.

To this answer, Jesus pronounces Peter as the rock of His church and promises to give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

What does Jesus mean by making Peter the rock of the church?

There are three ways of understanding this:

The rock is Peter’s person, almost all modern commentators, see Clarke p192;
The rock is Peter’s confession, most of the church fathers, see Schaff §61, Barrow p78;
The rock is Christ, see Augustine p90, Beveridge p395, Plumptre p231 and Wordsworth p58.

Roman Catholics insist on the first of these although the first two can easily be merged together. They conclude from this that Peter was given a primacy of jurisdiction over the entire church and that this primacy was handed down to each of his successors in turn. Protestants understand this text to be teaching that Christ gave Peter a primacy of honor because he would take the leading role in the church especially in the gentile mission.

What is the difference between a primacy of jurisdiction and a primacy of honor?

A primacy of jurisdiction means that this person has authority over another person and can command or forbid him from acting in a certain way. A person who has a primacy of honor does not have any authority over others; he is simply the first among equals as the expression is often used.

For example, a pastor in a presbyterian church does not have any authority over the other elders, but he likely does have a primacy of honor which means that he is respected highly.
The CEO of a company has a primacy of jurisdiction, i.e. he can tell other people what to do.

How does this text show that Peter had a primacy of jurisdiction and not simply a primacy of honor?

Wiseman sees three prerogatives here given to Peter:

he is the rock of the church;
he holds the keys;
he is given the mandate to feed Christ’s flock (not given here in Matthew 16 but in John 21:15-17).

How does Wiseman understand Peter being the rock?

He writes (p267):

For what is the first idea which this figure [a rock] suggests except that the whole edifice grows up in unity and receives solidity from its been mortised and rivetted into this common base. But what can be simply effected in a material edifice by the weight or tenacity of its component parts can only be permanently secured in a moral body by a compressive influence or by the exercise of authority and power. We style the laws the basis of social order because it is their office to secure by their administration the just rights of all to punish transgressors to arbitrate differences to ensure uniformity of conduct in all their subjects. We call our triple legislative authority the foundation of the British constitution because from it emanate all the powers which regulate the subordinate parts of the body politic and on it repose the government the modification the reformation of the whole.

He concludes: “On the strength of these passages [Matthew 16:18; John 21:15-17], principally, the Catholic Church has ever maintained that St Peter received a spiritual pre-eminence and supremacy.” Protestant would argue agree that Peter was given a supremacy here but not over the other apostles.

Does not Jesus giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter imply that he was given a primacy of jurisdiction?

It does since having the keys of the kingdom would mean having authority in the church. Edersheim writes (p85) that having the power of binding and loosing would include all the legislative functions in the church.

In the view of the Rabbis heaven was like earth, and questions were discussed and settled by a heavenly Sanhedrin. Now, in regard to some of their earthly decrees, they were wont to say that ‘the Sanhedrin above’ confirmed what ‘the Sanhedrin beneath’ had done. But the words of Christ, as they avoided the foolish conceit of His contemporaries, left it not doubtful, but conveyed the assurance that, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, whatsoever they bound or loosed on earth would be bound or loosed in heaven.

Culver takes a different view:

Heaven did not promise to certify and enforce whatever Peter and successors might decree true or demand of the church; rather that Peter as steward of God’s new household (the Christian ekklēsia) would act at God’s pleasure not his own, and admit or exclude precisely those whom heaven had already admitted or excluded. We see him admitting in Acts 2; 8; and 10. We see him refusing Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) and Simon Magus (Acts 8). Systematic Theology, p846.

Why then do Protestants not agree with Roman Catholics that Peter has a primacy of jurisdiction?
Protestants agree that Peter had such a primacy over the church. It is not true, however, that Peter had authority over the other apostles for two reasons:

the power of the keys is given to all the apostles on two other occasions;
the early church did not act in such a way which would lead us to believe that they recognized Peter’s primacy of jurisdiction.

Where does Jesus give the power of the keys to all the apostles?

There are two such passages:

“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.” (Matthew 18:15-20)

Right before His ascension, Jesus says this to His disciples:

So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” (John 20:19-23)

This does not mean that Peter did not have a primacy of honor in the apostolic circle. See Origen (p456) on this.

You said previously that the apostles did not appear to recognize any such authority in Peter. Explain this.

The following are incidents in the gospel history which indicate that the other apostles did not understand Peter to be in a position of authority over them. Consider:

When the vacancy left by Judas’ death has to be filled, it is Peter who stands up and leads the church to resolve this problem. Peter does not, however, hand down a decision which he has made. On the contrary, the text says, “So they put forward two men…” which indicates that there was some kind of nomination process. Then lots are cast and Matthias is chosen.
Paul’s correction of Peter in Galatians 2:11f.
Peter certainly spoke at the council of Jerusalem, but it was James who said, “Therefore it is my judgment that…” (Acts 15:19)

Sum up the Protestant understanding of Matthew 16:18.

Protestants argue that Roman Catholics have drawn conclusions from this text which the text itself does not warrant. They generally agree that Jesus gave Peter a leading role in the founding of the church. Summers (p190):

Peter was the first among the equals of the apostolic college. In recognition of his forwardness in confessing Christ, he was chosen to open the kingdom of heaven to the Jews, on the day of Pentecost, and to the Gentiles, in the case of Cornelius and his friends. Acts 2, 10, 15:7. In the foundation-work of the ministry, the other apostles were, indeed, associated with him; (Gal. 2:9; Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14;) as all the Levites are called stones of the temple—but Peter began the work. This interpretation embraces the doctrinal substance of that which refers the rock to Christ, and that without any forcing, as Peter’s fundamental ministry consisted in preaching the Christ contained in his confession. Thus the Church is built on Peter, only as Peter builds on Christ, (1 Cor. 3:10,) or is built on him, (1 Peter 2:4–8.) The word Church occurs here for the first time: it occurs nowhere else in the Gospels, except in Matt. 18:17. The

Meyer (p419):

Besides, there can be no doubt whatever that the primacy among the apostles is here assigned to Peter, inasmuch as Christ singles him out as that one in particular whose apostolic labors will, in virtue of the steadfast faith for which he is peculiarly distinguished, be the means of securing, so far as human effort can do so (comp. Rev. 21:4; Gal. 2:9), the permanence and stability of the church which Jesus is about to found, and to extend more and more in the world. As in accordance with this, we may also mention the precedence given to this disciple in the catalogues of the apostles, and likewise the fact that the New Testament uniformly represents him as being, in point of fact, superior to all the others (Acts 15:7, 2:14; Gal. 1:18, 2:7, 8).

Keener:

Whether Peter thus acts as “prime minister” for the kingdom or perhaps as a “chief rabbi” making halakic rulings based on Jesus’ teachings, he clearly acts on sufficient delegated authority. Whereas Israel’s religious elite was shutting people out of the kingdom, those who confessed Jesus’ identity along with Peter were authorized to usher people into God’s kingdom. Peter may thus function as the representative eschatological missionary, a “fisher of men” par excellence. Non-Matthean tradition retains this special role for Peter; thus, for example, Acts indicates that he opened an official door to the Gentiles. Matthew, p429–430.

Briggs wrote in 1907 (p348) that all attempts to explain the “rock” in any other way than referring to Peter have failed.

St Peter was thus made, by the appointment of Jesus, the rock on which the Church was built as a spiritual house or temple; and at the same time, the porter of the kingdom whose privilege it is to open and shut its gates. The Church is here conceived as a building a house constituted of living stones all built upon Peter, the first of these stones or the primary rock foundation. It is also conceived as a city of God into which men enter by the gates.

Other Passages:

To what other Bible passages do Roman Catholics appeal in support of their understanding of the rule of faith?

One author wrote this:

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.

With the first part of this, Protestants have no disagreement. They disagree when the author argues that these oral teachings must be accepted by today’s Christians just as we now accept the written traditions. Of course, if these oral traditions really were still in existence, then Protestants would submit to them and would quickly write them down so as to preserve them.

What about the above author’s reference of Matthew 28:19?

The author quotes this verse in proof of the fact that the apostles were given authority by Christ to teach, and this certainly is correct. Wiseman makes a great deal of this text. He points out (p103) that this text is interpreted in three different ways:

The Roman Catholic understanding which understands Jesus to be giving His people a promise that He will assist her to the end of time and prevent her from ever falling into error.
Jesus here is giving his church a promise that the basic truths of Christianity will never be lost.
Jesus gives a promise here to every believer that He will assist him in constructing his own theology.

Wiseman defends the first of these by a study of the words “will be with you” in Scripture. He concludes (p104): “To most of these texts we have a paraphrase or explanation attached which clearly defines the sense of the phrase to be that any one with whom God was, He blessed and made to prosper in all things.” He then rejects the idea that “world” here means as long as the apostles are living. Then he moves to the pronoun “you” and concludes that this should not be understood as being limited to the apostles themselves. Finally, he arrives at his understanding of the text (p107):

Putting now together the various significations thus discovered for the phrases composing the text under investigation, we have the following plain interpretation of it: that Christ promised to watch with peculiar care and solicitude over and exert his most especial providence in favor of His Apostles and that this care and providence would not be limited to the lives of those whom He immediately addressed but should be unfailingly continued through all successive ages to the end of time in the persons of those who should succeed them.

From here, he shows that “I will be with you” in Scripture means that when God sends someone on a mission which can’t be performed by mere human ability, He guarantees success by adding these words “I am with you.”

How does this support the Roman Catholic claim?

Because he then goes on to show that the commission which Jesus gave to the disciples was to make disciples of all nations. (Matthew 28:19) From this, he concludes that Jesus has appointed the church to be the universal instructor of all nations. This teaching will include “all that I commanded you.” Wiseman then asks (p109):

I ask you is not this a commission exactly comprising all that I have said we might be prepared to expect? Does it not institute an order of men to whom Christ has given security that they shall be faithful depositaries of His truths? Does it not constitute His kingdom whereunto all nations have to come? Does it not establish therein His own permanent teaching in lieu of prophecy so as to prevent all error from entering in? and is not this kingdom of His Church to last till the end of time?

Protestant have very little to disagree with in this. They agree that:

Jesus appointed His apostles to be the teaching authority in the church;
the church of Christ will last until the end of time;
Jesus promised to preserve His church in the truth until the end of time.

Where does Wiseman’s interpretation go wrong then?

First, it is not clear that Jesus meant this command only for His eleven disciples. Alford writes (p283): “Demonstrably, this was not understood as spoken to the Apostles only, but to all the brethren.” He references Acts 8:1-4 in support of this.

Second, Wiseman has not at all proven that these promises from Jesus imply that no error would ever enter the church.

Are there other texts which Roman Catholics use to defend their position?

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 is that institution charged by God to be the infallible keeper and preserver of these unwritten traditions?

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 simply teaches us that the word of God will endure forever which no one disputes. In the apostles’ time, much of God’s word 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. That part of Jesus’ and the apostles’ teaching which remained unwritten is lost to us. We have no other document or institution which speaks for God except the Bible. Litton writes (p30):

The first Christian Church was, no doubt, founded by the oral teaching of the Apostles, and continued for some time dependent on that oral teaching; never, however, wholly without a written Word, for it had the Old Testament, and the Apostles were always careful to connect their teaching, as far as might be, with the Jewish Scriptures (Acts 17:2, 3; 18:28; 28:23); but still, certainly, without New Testament Scriptures. And if it had been provided that a succession of Apostles, of men inspired as St. Paul and St. John were, should continue to the close of this dispensation, the Church could have been perpetuated, and preserved from error, as it was during the Apostles’ life-time. This, however, was not the appointed plan. The men were to drop off in the course of nature and in succession, and an Apostolate of the written Word was to take their place, the men surviving in their writings. This work commenced in due time, and continued through a series of years; one Apostolical writing proving itself on and by another, until the Canon was complete. These writings may be obscure or defective, but it is certain that we have nothing else to rely upon as genuine Apostolical tradition. And let us imagine what would be our condition if, without a living Apostolate, we had nothing but a tradition of oral teaching to look to, no authentic record of what Christ and the Apostles delivered. We need not go far to form a prediction. The Jews held fast to their written Word, but as soon as ever they attempted to complete it by traditions, it was to make it void (Mark 7:9). Certain Christian Churches retain, and profess to honor, the written Word; but they have admitted the principle of tradition as a co-ordinate authority, and the practical aspect of their Christianity is not such as to recommend the principle. It follows that a doctrine which professes to rest on unwritten tradition must be tested by its agreement with what we know to be Apostolical tradition, while we are not certain that anything else is; and be accepted, or rejected, accordingly.

Official Roman Catholic Statements:

What is the official position of the Roman Catholic church on this point?

Consider first 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:

Question 34: What is meant by tradition?

Answer: 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.

Question 35: Where are the teachings of tradition kept?

Answer: 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.

Question 36: What importance must we attach to tradition?

Answer: 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):

Question: What is the rule by which the church preserves entire the deposit of Faith and confounds all sectaries?

Answer: 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.

He went on to say (p28):

The controversy between us and heretics consists in this—that we assert that all necessary doctrine concerning faith and morals is not expressly contained in Scripture, and, consequently, besides the written Word there is needed an unwritten one; whereas they teach that in the Scriptures all such necessary doctrine is contained, and consequently there is no need of an unwritten Word.

The position was most explicitly stated by Vatican I:

Chapter 4: On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff

1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

2. So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: “The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,[55] cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion.”[56]

What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession: “The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.”[57]

Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence: “The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church.”[58]

3. To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.

4. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59] .

5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”[60]

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our Savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Start with Vatican I. What are we to make of this Roman Catholic teaching?

I’ll break up this paragraph line by line.

That apostolic primacy…

Theologians distinguish between a primacy of jurisdiction and a primacy of honor. Anyone having a primacy of jurisdiction has the authority to rule over others. A primacy of honor implies no authority but a greater respect; such a person is the first among equals. The council understands primacy here to be a primacy of jurisdiction. In a previous article, the council stated: We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God…

…which the Roman Pontiff possesses…

While the Bible portrays Peter as having a primacy of honor amongst the apostles, there is no record in the Bible that a primacy of jurisdiction was given to Peter by Jesus or that Peter even claimed such. Peter calls himself simply a “fellow elder.” (1 Peter 5:1) This idea grew gradually; see Schaff §26. Zahn argues that (p165) Peter did minister in Rome; Farrar says (p77) that it could only have been a brief time.

…as successor of Peter,…

There is no record in the Bible of Jesus appointing or even speaking of any successor to any of the apostles. The apostles were clearly successors to Jesus (John 20:19-23) but no successor to the apostles was ever given. Nor is there any historical record of Peter or any of the apostles appointing someone to take their place. The Bible does teach that the apostles were unique; see here.

the prince of the apostles,

Peter had a primacy of honor in the early church.

includes also the supreme power of teaching.

The apostles did have the supreme power of teaching in the early church.

This Holy See has always maintained this,

True.

the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it,

This is obviously false. Peter did not found the church in Rome, nor is it even known who the first bishops of Rome were. Peter was not the bishop of the Roman church. Raymond Brown says this claim was not made until the third century. (Brown, Antioch & Rome, 98) It is true that the early churches did look to the church in Rome and her bishop with great respect. It is not true that the bishops of the first centuries understood the bishop of Rome to have a primacy of jurisdiction over the entire church; see Schaff on Ignatius §45 Irenaeus & Tertullian §46 Cyprian §47; Mosheim p120.

and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

None of these councils declared or defined a primacy of jurisdiction for the Roman bishop; see Schaff §62. They did all recognize a pride of place to the Roman bishop and gave him great respect. None of the councils below were convened by the pope:

1. Nicaea I (325): Convened by Emperor Constantine I to address Arianism. Pope Sylvester I sent legates but did not call it.
2. Constantinople I (381): Convened by Emperor Theodosius I. Pope Damasus I ratified it later but didn’t summon it.
3. Ephesus (431): Convened by Emperor Theodosius II. Pope Celestine I supported it and sent representatives, but it was the emperor’s initiative.
4. Chalcedon (451): Convened by Emperor Marcian at the request of Pope Leo I, who influenced its agenda (the Tome of Leo).
5. Constantinople II (553): Convened by Emperor Justinian I. Pope Vigilius was pressured to participate and reluctantly approved it.
6. Constantinople III (680–681): Convened by Emperor Constantine IV, with strong encouragement from Pope Agatho, who sent legates and shaped its outcome.
7. Nicaea II (787): Convened by Empress Irene and Emperor Constantine VI. Pope Hadrian I endorsed it and sent legates, but it was an imperial summons.

The fathers at the council of Chalcedon clearly did not hold to the Roman bishop’s primacy of jurisdiction since they gave equal honor to the bishop of Constantinople. When Pope Leo read this, he did all he could to cancel it; see Hefele p433, Harnack p225, Gore p119. The other councils quoted above were much later, the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869), second Council of Lyons (1274), the Council of Florence (1431).

What about the fourth paragraph?

The fourth paragraph states:

Is it true that the church fathers submitted their theological questions to the Roman bishop for his decision?

Yes, this did occasionally happen. It is not true, however, that the church fathers always submitted to Rome’s judgment in these matters. The controversy between Cyprian and pope Stephen is an example; see Schaff §74, Hefele p98. The fathers certainly held the Roman bishop’s opinion in high regard but certainly not infallible or binding.

What about the fifth paragraph?

This paragraph states:

This is surely true although the first councils were not summoned by the pope as stated above. The last sentence assumes that the pope’s have some special help from God in defining doctrines, but this has not been proven. Finally, the claim is made that the pope’s definitions of doctrine are in keeping with the Bible and the apostolic traditions. This is clearly false since several of the more recent papal definitions are not found anywhere in the Bible or in early church history. With regards to the papal decision on infallibility, Dollinger wrote (p4) that the church fathers “without exception” interpreted the Bible passages, which the council quoted in support of papal infallibility, differently than the council.

What of paragraph six?

Again, I proceed line by line:

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter…

As was stated previously, there is no record in the Bible or history that Peter or any apostle appointed a successor or had any successors. Jesus did promise the Holy Spirit to His apostles, but there is no record that He promised the Holy Spirit to any supposed successors of the apostles.

not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

This is good to read; it seems to be the idea of the material sufficiency of Scripture, and Protestants would heartily agree. It does not seem consistent with other Roman Catholic statements, however. See Bellarmine above, for an example.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,

Very true. The church fathers were very zealous to follow the teachings of the apostles.

for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” (Luke 22:32)

This is just factually incorrect. The church fathers never regarded the pope as infallible, nor did they understand his primacy to be a primacy of jurisdiction. In regards to Luke 22, Dollinger writes (p4) that no church father ever understood this to confer infallibility on the bishops of Rome. A collection of the fathers’ statements on Peter is here.

And what of paragraph seven?

This paragraph states:

The entirety of this paragraph is false as stated previously.

But isn’t a supreme and infallible judge necessary to preserve unity in the church?
The idea here is that if everyone is left to their own private judgment, then there will be massive fragmentation in the church. Now, it must be admitted that there is a lamentable amount of disunity in Protestant churches. What is interesting, however, is that this same amount of disunity is seen in the Roman Catholic community. One can find Roman Catholics all over the theological map. It’s a simple fact that the pope’s infallibility has not led to an increase in unity.

Why is this?
Consider the difference between a Protestant and a Roman Catholic:

A Protestant has questions about his faith; he consults the Bible to decide the matter. Here we have a fallible interpreter trying to understand an infallible text. The Roman Catholics tell us that this will lead to massive disunity.
A Roman Catholic has questions about his faith; he consults his church for answers. His church reads the infallible Bible and provides an infallible answer. The man reads this answer and goes on his way. Now here we have a fallible interpreter trying to understand an infallible interpretation of an infallible text. How is this situation any kind of an improvement than the above?

Roman Catholics have simply moved the fallible reader one step farther from the Bible. 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)

Does the Roman Catholic church claim to be able to interpret the Bible infallibly?
The pope is always infallible when he speaks ex cathedra on a subject of faith or morals. 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 their church can interpret Scripture infallibly, 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) with which Christians have had to struggle for centuries?
This is another of those questions that Roman Catholics have never answered. The real reason, of course, is that the Roman Catholic leadership is just as reliant on sound grammatical and historical exegesis as anyone.

And what of paragraph eight?

This paragraph states:

There is no record of the Son of God attaching infallibility to any office of the church. Neither is it mentioned by Paul in the pastoral letters or by any of the church fathers.

Is it fair to say, then that Roman Catholics understand their church to be the rule of faith?

Yes.

Apostolic Successors:

What arguments do Roman Catholics use to show that Peter had successors to whom he handed off his apostolic privileges?

Wiseman first argues (p278) that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and that the prerogatives of any bishop were always handed off to his successor.

Second, he argues as follows:

The government of the kingdom of God can never change;
Jesus intended Peter to be both a center of unity in the church and a guarantee of its durability;
If Jesus thought it necessary to have one man with the primacy in the glory days of the early church, then surely it is necessary, after the first enthusiasm of the church has waned and the extent of the church is now so much wider;

From this, he concludes that Peter’s primacy was handed off to a successor.

Third, the authority of Peter must have been intended by Jesus to be perpetual since it was so understood by the Christians that followed Peter’s death.

You said previously that Peter was not the bishop of Rome.

If Peter was the bishop of Rome, there is no historical record of it. Neither is there any historical record of who might have been the first bishops of the church in Rome or even if there were bishops. Farrar writes (p448): “He may have died in Rome; he may even have preached in Rome; he may even have been accepted by the Jewish section of Roman Christians as their nominal “Bishop;” but that he was not, and could not have been, in any true sense the original founder of the Roman Church is freely admitted even by Roman Catholics themselves. Raymond Brown writes that this claim was not made until the third century. (Brown, Antioch & Rome, 98)

What of Wiseman’s second argument?

At this point in his argument, Wiseman is assuming that he has already proven that Peter had been given a primacy of jurisdiction over the other apostles. Protestants don’t accept this. Then, he goes on to conclude that this form of government must be perpetual. This too is not proven.

What about Wiseman’s third argument?

From the historical records, there are many indications that the church fathers did not understand Rome to have a primacy of jurisdiction.

Give some examples of this.

Augustine

What did Augustine teach with regards to the rule of faith?

Augustine wrote (p350):

On such terms we might amuse ourselves without fear of offending each other in the field of Scripture, but I might well wonder if the amusement was not at my expense. For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the MS. is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of in truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error. Far be such arrogance from that humble piety and just estimate of yourself which I know you to have, and without which assuredly you would not have said, “Would that I could receive your embrace, and that by converse we might aid each other in learning!”

Again (p35):

Now let the proud and swelling necks of the heretics raise themselves, if they dare, against the holy humility of this address. You mad Donatists, whom we desire earnestly to return to the peace and unity of the holy Church, that you may receive health therein, what have ye to say in answer to this? You are wont, indeed, to bring up against us the letters of Cyprian, his opinion, his Council; why do ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and reject his example when it makes for the peace of the Church? But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity?

and again (p177):

As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth in obscure and recondite matters, and that these mistakes may or may not be corrected in subsequent treatises. For we are of those of whom the apostle says: “And if you be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.” Philippians 3:15 Such writings are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind. If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself. In other books the reader may form his own opinion, and perhaps, from not understanding the writer, may differ from him, and may pronounce in favor of what pleases him, or against what he dislikes. In such cases, a man is at liberty to withhold his belief, unless there is some clear demonstration or some canonical authority to show that the doctrine or statement either must or may be true. But in consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Otherwise, not a single page will be left for the guidance of human fallibility, if contempt for the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an end to that authority altogether, or involves it in hopeless confusion.

Introduction

Bible

Matthew 16:18

Other Passages:

Official Roman Catholic Statements:

Apostolic Successors:

Augustine

Leave a Reply Cancel reply