Reference Section: Sola Scriptura

[phatcatholic]

phatpham,

this is the thread where you provide all the info you can find on how SS is historically impossible. by this i mean that, b/c printed material was hard to come by before the printing press, many people could not read, distribution of printed materials was difficult, education w/ which to provide scholarly analysis was hard to come by, etc., etc., etc., ---Sola Scriptura is historically impossible.

thanks,

phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola5.htm

THE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS OF SOLA SCRIPTURA

by James Akin

Simply stated, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone") teaches that every teaching in Christian theology (everything pertaining to "faith and practice") must be able to be derived from Scripture alone. This is expressed by the Reformation slogan Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum ("What is not biblical is not theological," cf. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, Richard A. Muller, Baker, 1985).

An essential part of this doctrine, as it has been historically articulated by Protestants, is that theology must be done without allowing Tradition or a Magisterium (teaching authority) any binding authority. If Tradition or a Magisterium could bind the conscience of the believer as to what he was to believe then the believer would not be looking to Scripture alone as his authority.

A necessary corollary of the doctrine of sola scriptura is, therefore, the idea of an absolute right of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures. Each individual has the final prerogative to decide for himself what the correct interpretation of a given passage of Scripture means, irrespective of what anyone-or everyone-else says. If anyone or even everyone else together could tell the believer what to believe, Scripture would not be his sole authority; something else would have binding authority. Thus, according to sola scriptura, any role Tradition, a Magisterium, Bible commentaries, or anything else may play in theology is simply to suggest interpretations and evidence to the believer as he makes his decision. Each individual Christian is thus put in the position of being his own theologian.

PRIVATE JUDGEMENT

Of course, we all know that the average Christian does not exercise this role in any consistent way, even the average person admitted by Fundamentalists to be a genuine, "born again" believer. There are simply too many godly people who are very devout in their faith in Jesus, but who are in no way inclined to become theologians.

Not only is the average Christian totally disinclined to fulfill the role of theologian, but if they try to do so, and if they arrive at conclusions different than those of the church they belong to—an easy task considering the number of different theological issues—then they will quickly discover that their right to private judgment amounts to a right to shut up or leave the congregation. Protestant pastors, even Luther and Calvin, have long realized that, although they must preach the doctrine of private judgment, to ensure their own right to preach, they must prohibit the exercise of this right in practice for others, lest the group be torn apart by strife and finally break up. It is the failure of the prohibition of the right of private judgment that has resulted in the over 20,000 Christian Protestant denominations listed in the Oxford University Press’s World Christian Encyclopedia. The disintegration of Protestantism into so many competing factions, teaching different doctrines on key theological issues (What kind of faith saves? Is baptism necessary? Is baptism for infants? Must baptism be by immersion only? Can one lose salvation? How? Can it be gotten back? How? Is the Real Presence true? Are spiritual gifts like tongues and healing for today? For everyone? What about predestination? What about free will? What about church government?) is itself an important indicator of the practical failure of the doctrine of private judgment, and thus the doctrine of sola scriptura. However, there is a whole set of practical presuppositions that the doctrine of sola scriptura makes, every one of which provides not just an argument against the doctrine, but a fatal blow to it. Sola scriptura simply cannot be God’s plan for Christian theology.

In fact, it could never even have been thought to be God’s plan before a certain stage in European history because, as we will see, it could have only arisen after a certain technological development which was unknown in the ancient world. Before that one development, nobody would have ever thought that sola scriptura could be the principle God intended people to use, meaning it was no accident that the Reformation occurred when it did. If God had intended the individual Christian to use sola scriptura as his operating principle then it would have to be something the average Christian could implement. We can therefore judge whether sola scriptura could have been God’s plan for the individual Christian by asking whether the average Christian in world history could have implemented it.

Not only that, but since God promised that the Church would never pass out of existence (Matt. 16:18, 28:20), the normal Christian of each age must be able to implement sola scriptura, including the crucial patristic era, when the early Church Fathers hammered out the most basic tenets of Christian orthodoxy. It is in this practical area that the doctrine comes crashing down, for it has a number of presuppositions which are in no way true of the average Christian of world history, and certainly not of the average Christian of early Church history.

PRESUPPOSITION #1

First, if each Christian is to make a thorough study of the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean (even taking into consideration the interpretations of others) then it follows that he must have a copy of the Scriptures to use in making his thorough study (a non-thorough study being a dangerous thing, as any Protestant apologist will tell you, warning against the cults and their Bible study tactics). Thus the universal application of sola scriptura presupposes the mass manufacturing of books, and of the Bible in particular.

This, however, was completely impossible before invention of the printing press, for without that there could not be enough copies of the Scriptures for the individual Christians to use. Sola scriptura therefore presupposes the inventing of the printing press, something that did not happen for the first 1,400 years of Church history.

It is often noted by even Protestant historians that the Reformation could not have taken off like it did in the early 1500s if the printing press had not been invented in the mid-1400s. This is more true than they know, because the printing press not only allowed the early Protestant to mass produce works containing their teachings about what the Bible meant, it allowed the mass production of the Bible itself (as Catholics were already doing—one does realize, of course, that the Gutenberg Bible and the other versions of the Bible being produced before Protestantism were all Catholic Bibles). Without the ability to mass produce copies of the Scriptures for the individual Christians to interpret, the doctrine of sola scriptura could not function, since one would only have very limited access to the texts otherwise-via the Scripture readings at Mass and the costly, hand-made copies of the Bible kept on public display at the church. Thus sola scriptura presupposes the printing press.

This is a key reason why the Reformation happened when it did—several decades after the invention of the printing press. It took time for the idea of the printing press to make its mark on the European mind and get people excited about the idea of easily available books. It was in this heady atmosphere, the first time in human history when dozens of ancient works were being mass produced and sold, that people suddenly got excited with the thought, "Hey! We could give copies of the Bible to everyone! Everyone could read the Scriptures for themselves!"—a thought which led very quickly into sola scriptura in the minds of those who wished to oppose historic Christian theology, as it would provide a justification for their own desire to depart from orthodoxy ("Hey, I read the Scriptures, and this is what they said to me!"). Of course, the invention of the printing press does not itself enable us to give Bibles to every Christian in the world (as all the calls for Bibles to be sent to Russia illustrate), which leads to the next practical presupposition of sola scriptura.

PRESUPPOSITION #2

Second, besides the printing press, sola scriptura also presupposes the universal distribution of books and of the Bible in particular. For it is no good if enough copies of the Bible exist but they can’t be gotten into the hands of the average believer. Thus there must be a distribution network capable of delivering affordable copies of the Bible to the average Christian. This is the case today in the developed world. However, even today we cannot get enough Bibles into many lands due to economic and political restraints, as the fund raising appeals of Bible societies and their stories of Bible smuggling inform us. However, in the great majority of Christian history, the universal distribution of books would have been totally impossible even in what is now the developed world. During most of Church history, the "developed world" was undeveloped.

The political systems, economies, logistical networks, and travel infrastructure that make the mass distribution of Bibles possible today simply did not exist for three-quarters of Church history. There was no way to get the books to the peasants, and no way the peasants could have afforded them in the first place. There just wasn’t enough cash in circulation (just try giving a printer 5,000 chickens for the 1,000 Bibles he has just printed—much less keeping the chickens alive and transported from the time the peasants pay them to the time the printer gets them).

PRESUPPOSITION #3

Third, if the average Christian is going to read the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean, then he obviously must be able to read. Having someone read them to him simply is not sufficient, not only because the person would only be able to do it occasionally (what with a bunch of illiterates to read to), but also because the person needs to be able to go over the passage multiple times. He must look at its exact wording and grammatical structure, quickly flip to other passages bearing on the topic to formulate the different aspects of a doctrine as he is thinking about it, and finally record his insights so he doesn’t forget them and keep the evidence straight in his mind. He therefore must be literate and able to read for himself. Thus sola scriptura presupposes universal literacy.

PRESUPPOSTION #4

Fourth, if the average Christian is going to make a study of what Scripture says and decide what it teaches, he must possess adequate scholarly support material, for he must either be able to read the texts in the original languages or have material capable of telling him when there is a translation question that could affect doctrine (for example, does the Greek word for "baptize" mean "immerse" or does it have a broader meaning? Does the biblical term for "justify" mean to make righteous in only a legal sense or sometimes in a broader one?). He must also have these scholarly support works (commentaries and such) to suggest to him possible alternate interpretations to evaluate, for no one person is going to be able to think of every interpretive option on every passage of Scripture that is relevant to every major Christian doctrine. No Protestant pastor (at least no pastors who are not in extreme anti-intellectual circles) would dream of formulating his views without such support materials, and he thus cannot expect the average Christian to do so either. inDouche! The average Christian is going to need such support materials even more than a trained pastor. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes the possession—not just the existence—of adequate support materials.

PRESUPPOSTION #5

Fifth, if the average Christian is to do a thorough study of the Bible for himself, then he obviously must have adequate time in which to do this study. If he is working in the fields or a home (or, later, in the factory) for ten, twelve, fifteen, or eighteen hours a day, he obviously doesn’t have time to do this, especially not in addition to the care and raising of his family and his own need to eat and sleep and recreate. Not even a Sunday rest will provide him with the adequate time, for nobody becomes adept in the Bible just by reading the Bible on Sundays—as Protestants stress to their own members when encouraging daily Bible reading. Thus sola scriptura presupposes the universal possession of adequate leisure time in which to make a thorough study the Bible for oneself.

PRESUPPOSITION #6

Sixth, even if a Christian had adequate time to study the Bible sufficiently, it will do him no good if he doesn’t have a diet sufficiently nutritious to let his brain function properly and his mind work clearly. This is something we often forget today because our diets are so rich, but for most of Christian history the average person had barely enough food to survive, and it was almost all bread. "Everything else," as the British historian James Burke put it, "was just something you ate with bread"—as a condiment or side-dish. This means that the average Christian of world history was malnourished, and as any public school dietitian can tell you, malnutrition causes an inability to study and learn properly. That is one of the big motivating forces behind the school lunch program. If kids don’t eat right, they don’t study right, and they don’t learn right, because they don’t think clearly. The same is true of Bible students. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes universal nutrition.

PRESUPPOSTION #7

Seventh, if the average Christian is going to evaluate competing interpretations for himself then he must have a significant amount of skill in evaluating arguments. He must be able to recognize what is a good argument and what is not, what is a fallacy and what is not, what counts as evidence and what does not. That is quite a bit of critical thinking skill, and anyone who has ever tried to teach basic, introductory logic to college students or anyone who had tried to read and grade the persuasive essays they write for philosophy tests can tell you (I’m speaking from personal experience here), that level of critical thinking does not exist in the average, literate, well-nourished, modern college senior, much less the average, illiterate, malnourished, Medieval peasant. This is especially true when it comes to the abstract concepts and truth claims involved in philosophy and theology. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes a high level of universal education in critical thinking skills (a level which does not even exist today).

Therefore sola scriptura presupposes (1) the existence of the printing press, (2) the universal distribution of Bibles, (3) universal literacy, (4) the universal possession of scholarly support materials, (5) the universal possession of adequate time for study, (6) universal nutrition, and (7) a universal education in a high level of critical thinking skills. Needless to say, this group of conditions was not true in the crucial early centuries of the Church, was not true through the main course of Church history, and is not even true today. The non-existence of the printing press alone means sola scriptura was totally unthinkable for almost three-quarters of Christian history! All of this is besides the limitations we mentioned earlier—the fact that the average Christian, even the average devout Christian has no inclination whatsoever to conduct the kind of Bible study needed to become his own theologian and the fact that he is encouraged by many pressures from his own pastor and congregation (including the threat of being cast out) to fall in line and not challenge—especially publicly challenge—the party platform.

CHRISTIANITY FOR THE COMMON MAN?

It is thus hard to think of sola scriptura as anything but the theory spawned by a bunch of idealistic, Renaissance-era dilettantes—people who had an interest in being their own theologians, who had a classical education in critical thinking skills, who had adequate nutrition, who had plenty of leisure time for study, who had plenty of scholarly support materials, who had good reading skills, who had access to Bible-sellers, and most importantly, who had printed Bibles!

The average Christian today, even the average Christian in the developed world, does not fit that profile, and the average Christian in world history certainly did not, much less the average Christian in the early centuries. What this means, since God does not ask a person to do what they are incapable of doing, is that God does not expect the average Christian of world history to use sola scriptura. He expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain his knowledge of theology in some other way.

But if God expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain the Christian faith without using sola scriptura, then sola scriptura is not God’s plan.

James Akin is a convert from conservative Presbyterianism. He is senior apologist at Catholic Answers in San Diego and author of Mass Confusion: The Do's and Don'ts of Catholic Worship.

Edited December 9, 2003 by phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Fa...APR99/sola.html

Sola Scriptura and Literacy

by Deborah Danielski

Dionysius poured red-hot iron into a mold made to represent the goddess Athena. As he worked, a familiar and almost incessant train of thought rolled through his mind. “This is the work of my hands,” he thought. “How can I accept that it should have any power over me?”

The year was 210 A.D. Dionysius was a silversmith living in a small village not far from Antioch. He had long-since rejected the religion of his culture with its gods and goddesses, but his observations of the death and rebirth of nature each year led him to believe that for man, too, there must be some form of life after death. So Dionysius led a good life, unselfishly loving and serving his family and neighbors. Still, he longed for knowledge of a god or gods in whom he could truly believe.

As Dionysius worked, a young man entered the blacksmith shop, taking note of the idol in progress. "Has anyone told you of the one true God?" the young man asked. "The creator of the heavens and earth."

Dionysius felt his heart leap within his chest. "Of which god do you speak?" he asked.

"The Jewish God, before whom there are no others," the young man responded.

Before long, he had shared with Dionysius the good news of God’s incarnation in Christ, his death on the cross in atonement for man’s sins and his resurrection from the dead. "This man, Jesus, was truly God and truly man," he said. "He calls all men to come to Him for eternal life."

Intrigued by the man’s story, Dionysius asked how he could learn more. "Come to our service this Sun day," the man responded. "We’re a small group, but knowledgeable and devoted to Christ."

On Sunday, Dionysius walked alone to the church service. He’d decided not to involve his family until he learned for himself whether this incredible story could be true.

"God has given us His word in this Holy Bible handed down from the Jewish nation," a man standing before the group of about twenty said, waving a bound codice in the air. "These written words of the Old Testament testify to the one true God and foretell his coming in the flesh. And since His coming, we’ve been given these New Testament writings — 27 more books written by the apostles of Christ. The apostles have all gone on to heaven now, but they left behind everything we need to know for our salvation right here in the Holy Bible. Search these Scriptures, for in them you will find eternal life."

Placing the Bible on the podium in front of him, the man gestured toward it as he related more information about this god and his son. Intrigued by the story, Dionysius longed to believe, but he knew he had a problem. If this god is contained in these books, how can I learn the truth about him, he wondered, when I cannot read? How can I be sure the words this man is reading are truly the words written in those scrolls he so cherishes?

When the service ended, the man who had been reading left immediately. So Dionysius explained his dilemma to another man from the audience.

"Every Sunday, we read a verse or two from the New Testament and expound upon it," the man responded. "Just pray to the Holy Spirit for enlightenment, then come each week and listen. You’ll soon realize that what we tell you is true."

So Dionysius returned to the church for the next five Sundays. During that time, the preacher told them many things, always reminding them that the so-called truths he related were contained in these sacred writings. Dionysius prayed as the man had suggested, but his doubts remained. Though the preacher frequently gesticulated toward the sacred scrolls, he rarely looked at the words. Dionysius doubted the preacher himself had the ability to read them. "If he can’t read either, how can I be sure that what he’s telling me is true?" he continued to wonder.

Dionysius had learned there was a group of believers in this same God meeting in Antioch, two day’s journey from his home. "The only way, I can know for sure is to go to Antioch," he decided. "Per haps the leader of that group can truly read the words from the sacred books. If his testimony agrees with the one here, then I will believe."

Friday morning, Dionysius packed a few provisions and set out on foot for Antioch. "Believe and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," the preacher of this church commanded. When a young boy presented himself for baptism, however, the man blessed him but refused baptism. "You are too young, yet my son," the man said. "Come back when you are old enough to understand what it is you are doing." Dionysius immediately realized there was something wrong. Back home, he’d seen the man who led the group baptize infants. If both groups found their truth in these sacred writings, why were their practices so different?

Dionysius stayed behind after the service to talk to the preacher about his concerns. "It is not baptism which saves you but faith in the finished work of Christ," the man said. "Baptism is just an outward sign of an inward reality. Since faith must come first, baptism must not be performed on anyone below the age of reason."

"But our church back home claims for its authority the same Scriptures you use here," Dionysius responded. "And there, infants are baptized."

"In their zeal to protect their children, they have misinterpreted the Scriptures," the man said. "See, here in the book of Acts: ‘Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.’ (Acts 2:38) First you must repent. A child cannot repent." Though he looked at the book in the man’s hands, Dionysius, of course, had no way of knowing if the man accurately related the words it contained.

As Dionysius returned home, his confusion mounted. His sincere desire to learn the truth, however, forced him to continue his evaluation of this new religion. The following week, he made an even longer trip to the city of Palmyra to compare what was being taught there.

In Palmyra, he heard yet another version of the Gospel. "O for if ye live after the flesh, ye must die; but if by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live," (Rom 8:13-14) the preacher intoned. "Repentance is not a once-for-all action as some would have you believe. If you are to live and not die, you must repent and surrender to the Holy Spirit every waking moment of your life."

At the church in Antioch, Dionysius had been told all he had to do to receive eternal life was believe in Christ and invite Him into his heart. Having done that, his salvation could never be. Now, this church taught a completely contradictory belief, supposedly from the exact same Scriptures."

On his way home, Dionysius prayed to the unknown God. "Do you purposely confuse me?" he asked. "What is an unlearned man such as I to do? To whom shall I turn? Must I first learn to read before I can know what you would have me to do? These men I have heard appear to be trusted by their followers, when they disagree, how is an illiterate man to choose between them?"

Receiving no answer, Dionysius abandoned his new-found hope in this unknown God. He died a bitter man.

But Wait

Long before you reached the end of this quite imaginative and purely fictional tale, you may have found yourself saying, "Wait a minute. That’s not how it was." And you would be right. It wasn’t. It does, however, illustrate how things might have been if today’s Protestant apologists were correct in their assertions about sola scriptura. Many would have us believe this doctrine dates back to the earliest days of the Church. They use quotations, taken out of context, from early Church Fathers such as Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem to prove their assertion. A thorough reading of the writings of these early fathers of the Church proves otherwise, however, as does a reasonable look at how the doctrine would have played out in that age.

In fact, the doctrine of sola scriptura, as understood by most of it adherents, could have found little support prior to the 16th century. In addition to presupposing that we can know from Scripture alone what is and is not Scripture, belief in sola scriptura presupposes a number of other conditions not present before the Protestant revolt:

1. That everyone can read.

2. That everyone who can read has access to a Bible written in his own language.

3. That either the Holy Spirit preserved the true meaning of the Scriptures in our modern translations, or everyone must know how to read Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

In the early centuries of the Church, only men who lived in major cities could read. Women and men who resided in the rural areas were not only illiterate, but generally too poor to afford the exorbitant cost of owning even one book of the Bible. How could anyone who could not read or own a Bible place their faith in "Scripture alone"?

As illogical as the doctrine of sola scriptura would appear to have been in the early Church, it would have been more so during the Dark Ages, when even fewer people could read and fewer still could afford their own copy of the Scriptures. Is it just "coincidence" that the invention of the doctrine of sola scriptura came right on the heels of the invention of the printing press?

As illustrated by the story above, it seems absurd to believe that at a time when few could read and fewer still knew any language other than their own, Christ would have confined to the written word a Gospel He commanded to be taught to all nations. At the very least, the illiterate would have been forced to place their faith, not in the Scriptures alone, but in the persons reading them.

Evil from Good

A favorite ploy of Protestants defending sola scriptura, is to accuse the Catholic Church of deliberately withholding the Scriptures from the laity by banning translations — implying such action is contrary to the Gospel. To a certain extent, what they claim is true. Their implications, however, are not.

In reaction to the Protestant revolt, the Council of Trent (1545-1563 A.D.) asserted:

Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience, that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to any one, the temerity of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it.

In our current culture, where the individual has been elevated to a status above the corporate Body of Christ, we Catholics are expected to recoil in horror when confronted with this quote. If instead, we compare these words to the historic evidence – the birth of more than 22,000 different Protestant "churches" in fewer than 500 years — these words from the Council of Trent seem quite prophetic inDouche. Only a blatant disregard for history allows for any other conclusion.

Writing just 80 years after the beginning of the Protestant revolt, St. Francis deSales had this to say:

"Now how can an honest soul refrain from giving the rein to the ardor of a holy zeal, and from entering in a Christian anger . . . considering with what presumption those who do nothing but cry, Scripture, Scripture, have despised, degraded and profaned this living Testament of the eternal Father . . . ? What will become of us if everybody takes leave, as soon as he knows two words of Greek, and the letters of Hebrew, thus to turn everything topsy turvy?"1

In regard to "what is and is not Scripture," consider how the French "reformers" claimed to recognize the truncated Canon they accepted. "We know these books to be canonical and a most safe rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the testimony and interior persuasion of the Holy Spirit."

How did this belief play out? According to St. Francis, Luther advocated removing from the canon not only the books Protestants consider apocryphal today, but also the New Testament books of James, Jude, 2nd Peter, 2nd & 3rd John and Hebrews. Just a few short years later, Calvin came along and supported the divine inspiration of the same New Testament books Luther opposed. This very early confusion was claimed to have been inspired by the exact same spirit and had thus far to do only with which books should and should not be considered Scripture — the same Scripture upon which they claimed all faith and practice should be based. All of this occurred, even before the Scriptures had made it into the hands of the majority of individuals.

If that in itself was not enough to cause people to question the source of the "spirit" that inspired them, Luther believed in baptismal regeneration and advocated retaining the Catholic doctrine of infant baptism. Calvin, on the other hand, insisted upon "believer’s baptism." Both based their beliefs, as their followers continue to claim today, on the self-same Scriptures.

"Do you not perceive the stratagem," wrote St. Francis. "All authority is taken away from Tradition, the Church, the Councils, the Pastors: what further remains? The Scripture. The enemy is crafty. If he would tear it all away at once, he would cause an alarm; he takes away a great part of it in the very beginning, then first one piece, then the other, at last he will have you stripped entirely, without Scripture and without the Word of God."

As history attests, it took only a few hundred years for the stratagem to work. While some Evangelicals and Fundamentalists continue in the early Protestant faith, clinging obstinately to sola scriptura, the majority of the populace–influenced by the modernists—have forsaken any belief in the Scriptures at all. The more loudly and insistently Protestantism kicks against the pricks (of Catholicism), promoting individual interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, the more irrevocably the ancient belief in their inerrancy is lost.

In addition to presupposing that everyone can read and has access to a copy of the Scriptures, the concept of sola scriptura demands that everyone either know how to read Greek and Hebrew, or that we believe the Holy Spirit inspired our modern translators with the same infallibility he gave to the original authors. What do you suppose St. Francis would say today, when individuals don’t consider it necessary even to know "two words of Greek, and the letters of Hebrew" to interpret for themselves what the Bible "really" says?

Protestants today still hold as a black mark against Catholicism: its hesitancy to make translations into popular language readily available. That hesitancy, however, was based upon sound reason.

"But I inform you," wrote St. Francis, "that the holy Council of Trent does not reject translations in the vulgar tongue printed by the authority of the Ordinaries; only it commands that we should not begin to read them without leave of superiors. This is a very reasonable precaution against putting this sharp and two-edged sword into the hands of one who might kill himself therewith."

Freedom or Presumption?

As early as the beginning of the third century, Tertullian warned against those who would twist the sacred Scriptures for their own purposes. "This [gnostic] heresy does not receive some of the Scriptures; and if it receives some it does not receive them whole ... and what it receives in a certain sense whole, it still perverts, devising various interpretations."

In like manner, Protestants promote "various interpretations" today, not only to support their diverse doctrines, but also to support their accusations against Catholicism. "Rome cannot maintain its power and influence among people who truly know the Scriptures," Protestant apologists claim.

Losing "power and influence," has inDouche been the Church’s concern, but not for the reasons proposed. What she feared, rather, was that her sheep would be led astray by self-proclaimed "prophets" who take the sacred writings into their own hands and "distort [them] to their own destruction" (2nd Peter 3:16).

The danger of sola scriptura is not in its promotion of individual Scripture study. Since we now have the ability to do so, we should read and study the Scriptures for ourselves. The danger of sola scriptura is believing each individual has the right and the duty to interpret for himself what the Scriptures actually teach.

"Try to harmonize, I pray you, this spirit and his persuasions, who persuades the one to reject what he persuades the other to receive," wrote St. Francis. "You will say perhaps that Luther is mistaken. He will say as much of you. Which is to be believed? Luther ridicules Ecclesiastics, he considers Job a fable. Will you oppose him your persuasion? He will oppose you his. So this spirit, divided against himself, will leave you no other conclusion except to grow thoroughly obstinate, each in his own opinion."

Can anyone deny that this is exactly what has occurred? What would previously have been considered presumption – the claim that the Holy Spirit has revealed to an individual something contrary to what He has revealed to His Church for centuries – is today considered "freedom."

"Luther’s inspiration," a modern-day Lutheran recently reminded me, "came from reading these words of our Lord: ‘To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said. If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free."

As long as Protestants continue to follow the example or their leaders, advocating that opposition to established authority is not presumptuous, but honorable, we will continue to see the birth of more and more "churches."

". . . [H]ere is one of the most successful artifices adopted by the enemy of Christianity and of unity in our age. . . ," wrote St. Francis. " He knew the curiosity of men, and how much one esteems one’s own judgment; and therefore he has induced his secretaries to translate the Holy Scriptures . . . and to maintain this unheard-of opinion that everyone is capable of understanding the Scriptures."

Ignoring the disastrous result, Protestantism continues to equate "freedom" with individuality and persists in thrusting a Bible into the hands of anyone who expresses interest. "Here, decide for yourself," sola scriptura demands. And, like our fictional Dionysius, sincere seekers find themselves incapable of discernment. "To whom shall I turn?" they rightfully ask. Exchanging the Truth for a lie, they soon abandon the Holy Word altogether.

Just before His arrest, Christ prayed to the Father:

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.

With nearly 500 years of sola scriptura behind us, and more than 22,000 denominations to its credit, is it any wonder so much of the world no longer believes?

Now it came to pass, while the multitude pressed upon him and heard the word of God, that he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret; and he saw two boats standing by the lake: but the fishermen had gone out of them, and were washing their nets. And he entered into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, and asked him to put out a little from the land. And he sat down and taught the multitudes out of the boat. (Luke 5:1-3)

That day Christ chose to teach from Peter’s boat. He still does. His intent was and remains that through the Church founded upon the Chair of Peter, "the manifold wisdom of God should be made known" (Eph 3:10).

Catholics need not rely on their own understanding but can rest assured in Christ’s promise to His Church:

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth. (Jn 16:12-13)

In that Truth — held, preserved and protected by the Roman Catholic Church for nearly 2,000 years — we are free inDouche.

An award-winning journalist, Deborah Danielski writes from Quincy, Illinois.

Edited December 9, 2003 by phatcatholic