In the
animal kingdom, many species are very social – that is, they need companionship
and are highly dependent on others within their species. But it is even more so with mankind. People need each other and in order to
thrive, we must be able to communicate well with each other.
Man has
developed many ways to communicate with his fellow man and it is important that
we can accurately understand each other.
Some communication needs are merely useful, while others are critical. And I would say that when it comes to reading
and interpreting Scripture, this is certainly of the highest order, because we
should want everyone to benefit from the Bible and to make it into Heaven.
The Bible is
widely recognized as God’s Word to mankind (Mark 7:13; 2 Corinthians 4:2; Ephesians
6:17; Colossians 1:25), and it is of great importance to know what
God’s message to us is. The problem is
that not everyone agrees with each other on how to interpret the things God is
telling us. So, the big question is: who
gets to interpret the Bible – who has the authority to do so – and what do we
do when there are disagreements on important issues?
Problem Solved?
So, again, who
is it that can authoritatively interpret Bible verses?
The Catholic
Church “solves” this problem by declaring itself
the “official” source for Scripture interpretation for the whole church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic
Church:
“The task of
giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written
form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching
office of the [Catholic] Church alone…” (CCC #85)
And again:
“The task of
interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium
of the [Catholic] Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion
with him.” (CCC #100)
So,
according to the Catholic Church, not only do we need them to interpret, but they are the ONLY ones to be trusted to do
the job “authentically”! Apparently,
they have a corner on the “Bible interpretation market.” Practically speaking, this would be a “spiritual
monopoly.”
So,
apparently, if Protestants, Orthodox, or anyone else claiming to be Christian
disagrees concerning an interpretation of some Scripture passage, they must
submit to the leaders/Magisterium of the Catholic Church for the correct
interpretation. Only they have the authority to infallibly
interpret!
Authority to Interpret?
For the
record, in those very same Scriptures, we find no such thing as “authority to interpret.” The truth is that there
is no “special authority” needed when interpreting Scripture. Asking who has that authority is like asking,
“Who has the authority to obey the Commandments?” But we don’t need “authority” for that
because we are expected to obey
them. In the same way, we are commanded to interpret God’s Word (2
Timothy 2:15). Will everyone do
it perfectly? No, but we are expected to
do it to the best of our ability/understanding.
Much of Scripture is easily understood, but for those things that
challenge our understanding, we must go deeper
into Scripture, as Jesus did when the devil quoted Scripture to Him (Matthew
4:5-7). Jesus simply said, “It
is written again…”
Furthermore,
the Bible never tells us that there is a person or group in the post-apostolic
church who can teach anything infallibly,
as they claim.
The Scourge of Division
It seems
that the top reason Catholics say that we need an infallible interpreter is
because of all the DIVISIONS they see in Protestantism. And they feel that this Magisterium is the
key to bring about unity. But it is
absolutely inevitable that divisions will
come, no matter which group you believe in, because we are human, and we
are fallible.
But which is
worse: 1) blindly submitting to a supposedly infallible source, whose popes
tend to have an unhealthy desire for “unity at any cost” and whose members
embrace a church plagued with unbiblical and false doctrines, OR 2) being part
of a fallible group of believers who diligently study the Word and who try hard
to make a reasonable interpretation
of what Scripture says, and who observe context, use common sense, recognize
the fact that Scripture is consistent with itself, and place Scripture above
all other teachings, testing all things by it (1 Thessalonians 5:21)?
Now, I am
not saying that Catholics have none of the latter traits mentioned, but I am
saying that they tend toward the former.
So yes, we should not be afraid to question our own church leaders and
church teachings, whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox.
And since we
are commanded to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) and to “prove all things” (1
Thessalonians 5:21), how can a Catholic possibly do these things if he
is forced by that Church to never let his understanding of Scripture contradict
the Church’s teaching? A Catholic may
say, “But the Church is infallible, so we don’t need to test or doubt it.” But this is purely circular reasoning. You had to use your fallible understanding to come to that conclusion. But the Bible, unlike the Catholic Church,
has proven itself! The Magisterium has
not proven itself to be infallible, and we have no biblical reason to believe
it is.
But
divisions are indeed an issue. Catholics
complain about Protestant divisions, but there are also plenty divisions in the
Catholic Church, as well, e.g., there is a “Pre-Vatican” view (traditionalists),
“Post-Vatican” view, “Feminist,” “Progressive,” “Liberal,” etc., etc. Many of these are fighting with each other on-line,
even about “infallible” doctrines!
So, if
divisions are a problem for Protestants, they are also a problem for
Catholics! But these cannot be
avoided. All human groups have at least
some divisions, unless they are a mindless cult!
It is
interesting that the apostle Paul, himself, said that certain divisions are sometimes
actually necessary in the body (1
Corinthians 11:17-19), so that those who are of approved
character may be clearly recognized.
Paul is not endorsing divisions here, but he acknowledges
that divisions are a reality in the
church of Christ, sometimes permitted by God in order to reveal those who are
genuine believers and those who are not.
These factions serve to encourage practical discernment between true and
false teachings, exposing hypocrisy and encouraging those that are faithful.
So, would an
infallible Magisterium stop divisions from happening? No, it wouldn’t, even if such an infallible
Magisterium did exist!
We will
continue with Part 2 next time…
Russell,
ReplyDeleteYour article doesn’t engage Catholic teaching. It attacks a cartoon version of it.
You quote the Catechism correctly enough — the authentic interpretation of Scripture belongs to the Magisterium — then turn it into something the Church never claimed. You write as if Catholics can’t read the Bible for themselves, as if every hard verse needs Rome’s official stamp, as if ordinary believers just wait for the Pope to tell them what the text means. That’s not the doctrine.
Catholics are encouraged to read and study Scripture. There’s no exhaustive, verse-by-verse infallible commentary. What the Church insists on is that private interpretation doesn’t override the deposit of faith, defined dogma, or the living Tradition. Those limits keep the Bible from becoming a blank check for whatever someone already wants to believe.
You treat infallibility as if it covers every word the Pope or bishops say about the Bible. It doesn’t. The conditions are narrow: the Pope speaking ex cathedra as universal teacher, defining a doctrine of faith or morals that binds the whole Church. Most magisterial teaching is authoritative but not claimed to be infallible. You flatten that distinction because the real teaching is harder to dismiss.
You say the Bible never mentions post-apostolic infallible teachers. The same Bible shows a living teaching authority that didn’t vanish with the apostles. The early Church settled disputes with that authority, not by handing everyone a scroll and saying “good luck.” Treating 2 Timothy 2:15 as a free pass for pure private judgment is modern individualism read back into the text.
The circular-reasoning charge misses the mark too. Catholics don’t just assume the Church is infallible. They argue from the texts, the historical continuity, and the need for a living authority that can settle disputes. You can reject those arguments. Pretending they don’t exist isn’t engagement.
Same with “test the spirits.” Testing a teaching against the rule of faith is not the same as making yourself the final judge over the Church Christ founded. You want permanent rights over the Church while denying it any rights over private interpretations that contradict the faith. That’s not humility.
And the division argument is the usual double standard. Catholics argue among themselves — people do. The claim was never that an infallible Magisterium produces a Church free of every internal fight. It’s that the defined core of the faith is protected. Protestantism’s deep, ongoing disagreements on baptism, the Eucharist, justification, the nature of the Church, even the canon, are what happens when you reject a living authoritative interpreter.
This isn’t really about a few hard verses. It’s about whether Christ left a Church with real teaching authority or just a book for every generation to re-read according to its own lights. The Catholic answer is that the Magisterium serves the Word; it doesn’t stand above it. Your article never faces that. It invents an easy target and congratulates itself for hitting it.
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete(Part 1)
You said:
“You write as if Catholics can’t read the Bible for themselves…”
But I never said or implied that Catholics are not allowed to read Scripture. I am aware that the Catholic Church allows them to do so. In fact, I strongly encourage all Catholics to read the Bible. But the problem is that the Church will not allow them to go where each passage’s context actually points. They often override context in order to end up with uniquely-Catholic teachings.
Now, I agree that the Bible should not be a “blank check” for anyone to make it say whatever ridiculous thing they want it to say. But that’s why we should follow context and allow the Bible to interpret itself. We should use hermeneutical principles and common sense, with a prayerful and humble attitude.
You said:
“Most magisterial teaching is authoritative but not claimed to be infallible.”
And suppose that a particular “authoritative” teaching is indeed WRONG – that it is indeed unbiblical? And I would say that much of it is wrong – not only that, but much of your “infallible” teaching is also.
You said:
“You say the Bible never mentions post-apostolic infallible teachers. The same Bible shows a living teaching authority that didn’t vanish with the apostles.”
The apostles had a unique authority that no one has today. Their authority was even infallible at certain times. The true church of Jesus Christ does indeed have authority to do certain things in the body today, but the infallible/God-breathed authority today resides only in Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17). There is no biblical warrant to insert this level of authority into “Tradition.”
You said:
“Treating 2 Timothy 2:15 as a free pass for pure private judgment is modern individualism read back into the text.”
Again, 2 Timothy 2:15 admonishes us to “rightly divide/interpret” the Word, but is not a free pass to allow for ridiculous teachings, as I said just above. There are “guardrails” in proper hermeneutics, but the Catholic Church does not always follow them.
Continued...
(Part 2)
ReplyDeleteYou said:
“The circular-reasoning charge misses the mark too. Catholics don’t just assume the Church is infallible. They argue from the texts, the historical continuity, and the need for a living authority that can settle disputes. You can reject those arguments.”
Well, I do indeed reject the argument that the Catholic Church is infallible, since it doesn’t line up with other infallible texts. Both the “historical continuity” and your “need” for “living authority” are not infallible entities.
You said:
“Same with ‘test the spirits’.” Testing a teaching against the rule of faith is not the same as making yourself the final judge over the Church Christ founded.”
I agree whole-heartedly! God Himself does not see testing Catholic teachings against the Scriptures as “making yourself the final judge.” We are ordered to test all things with Scripture. But this “final judge” and “being your own pope” language is simply a false and inflammatory accusation against Protestants.
You said:
“The claim was never that an infallible Magisterium produces a Church free of every internal fight.”
It’s funny, but the Magisterium is pumped up to seem like a cure-all: It is “living,” “authoritative,” it can “settle disputes,” it can provide an answer to “private interpretations” of Scripture and Tradition, it is backed by the pope, it “guards the deposit of faith,” it has given us the canon of Scripture, it is “historical,” it determines and defines the “core of faith,” it “maintains unity in the Church,” it guides moral and doctrinal teaching, protects from error and is guided by the Holy Spirit. It is even infallible! Having said all this, whenever interpretation is mentioned by Protestants, you guys are very quick to trumpet the virtues of the Magisterium. But now you backpedal and say, “Well, the Magisterium can’t really stop every internal fight!” Then why bring it up so quickly, and so vehemently, every time the dispute is about interpretation?
Finally, you also said:
“This isn’t really about a few hard verses. It’s about whether Christ left a Church with real teaching authority or just a book for every generation to re-read according to its own lights. The Catholic answer is that the Magisterium serves the Word; it doesn’t stand above it.”
Ok, this reveals your true colors: contrasting the Magisterium and the Bible, you say the Church has “real teaching authority” (as though the Bible doesn’t), and you call the Bible “just a book.” Then you claim that that the Magisterium “serves the Word.” But your language reveals your true intentions. They won’t say this, but practically speaking, the Catholic Church puts the Magisterium above Scripture, since it infallibly defines Scripture and it has the ability to infallibly interpret it, as well.
Go talk to someone else about how this Magisterium “serves” Scripture.
Russell,
DeleteYou say you never claimed Catholics can’t read the Bible. Fair enough — you didn’t use those exact words. But when you insist the Church won’t let them “go where each passage’s context actually points” and that it overrides context to protect “uniquely-Catholic teachings,” you’re still saying private reading is only free as long as it stays inside the lines Rome draws. That’s not freedom to follow the text. That’s permission to study as long as you don’t contradict the system.
You keep repeating that we should just let the Bible interpret itself with good hermeneutics and common sense. Catholics agree context matters. The disagreement is over who gets the final say when careful readers still land in different places. You treat your own reading of the context as the obvious, neutral one and call anything that lands Catholic an override of context. That’s not an argument. It’s just declaring your interpretation the default.
On infallibility: you say much of the authoritative teaching is wrong and even some of the infallible teaching is wrong. That’s the whole dispute in a sentence. You don’t get to assume Scripture alone is the only infallible authority and then use that assumption to dismiss the Church’s claim. You’re still starting from the conclusion you want.
The apostles had unique authority — no one denies that. The question is whether that authority died with them or whether Christ left a living means of preserving and applying what they handed on. Pointing to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 doesn’t settle it. That text says Scripture is God-breathed and profitable. It doesn’t say it is the only God-breathed authority left after the apostles, or that no living teaching office can operate under the Spirit’s protection.
You reject the historical and practical arguments for a living authority because they’re “not infallible entities.” Of course they’re not. Neither is your private judgment of the texts. The difference is that Catholics don’t claim those arguments are infallible in themselves. They claim the Church Christ founded is protected in its definitive teaching. You can reject that. Just don’t pretend the Protestant side is operating without any human, fallible layer of interpretation.
On “test the spirits”: no one is saying you can’t test teachings against Scripture. The issue is whether your personal conclusion from that testing automatically overrules the Church. Calling the Catholic position a demand that you never test anything is still a misrepresentation. Calling the Protestant position “being your own pope” may be sharp, but it’s describing the practical result: every believer becomes the final court of appeal for himself.
You list all the things Catholics claim for the Magisterium and then act surprised when it’s admitted that it doesn’t eliminate every internal disagreement. There’s no backpedaling. The claim was never that the Magisterium produces a Church free of human arguments. It’s that it can define and protect the core so the faith doesn’t dissolve into pure private opinion. Pointing out that Catholics still argue among themselves doesn’t erase the difference between that and the far deeper fragmentation that comes from rejecting any living definitive authority.
Finally, the “just a book” line. I said Christ left a Church with real teaching authority, not “just a book for every generation to re-read according to its own lights.” That is not calling Scripture “just a book.” It’s rejecting the idea that Scripture was left without a living interpreter. The Magisterium does not stand above the Word. It is bound to it. But if the only thing that can authoritatively say what the Word means is every individual’s reading, then in practice the individual becomes the final authority. That’s the issue. You’re free to reject the Catholic resolution of it. Just stop pretending the Catholic claim is that the Church invents doctrine and then forces it onto the text.
Anonymous,
Delete(Part 1)
You said:
“The disagreement is over who gets the final say when careful readers still land in different places.”
I agree. That is indeed a real issue. I wish it had a very simple solution, but again, I will say what I said in the article:
“But which is worse: 1) blindly submitting to a supposedly infallible source, whose popes tend to have an unhealthy desire for “unity at any cost” and whose members embrace a church plagued with unbiblical and false doctrines, OR 2) being part of a fallible group of believers who diligently study the Word and who try hard to make a reasonable interpretation of what Scripture says, and who observe context, use common sense, recognize the fact that Scripture is consistent with itself, and place Scripture above all other teachings, testing all things by it (1 Thessalonians 5:21)?”
I think the latter is far better.
As I said in my first comment above, we should use hermeneutical principles and common sense, with a prayerful and humble attitude. And I would add that following one’s conscience is also an important part in interpreting Scripture.
You said:
“You don’t get to assume Scripture alone is the only infallible authority and then use that assumption to dismiss the Church’s claim. You’re still starting from the conclusion you want.”
But that logic cuts both ways. I could say that you don’t get to assume an infallible Magisterium and then use that assumption to dismiss Sola Scriptura. You’re still starting from the conclusion you want.
I think it all comes down to whose interpretation is most reasonable.
You said:
“The question is whether that authority died with them [the apostles] or whether Christ left a living means of preserving and applying what they handed on.”
Yes, that statement would have more meaning if Catholics could actually tell us exactly what this “living means” IS. This only highlights the identity crisis of Sacred Tradition. See this link:
http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2026/08/sacred-traditions-identity-crisis.html
(Part 2)
DeleteYou spoke about testing the spirits/teachings and you said:
“The issue is whether your personal conclusion from that testing automatically overrules the Church.”
YES, if that testing determines that the Church’s teaching doesn’t line up with Scriptural principles, then yes, it overrules the Church!
If God expects us to TEST all things, don’t you think that He also expects us to be able to INTERPRET THE RESULTS after testing? It seems that your argument is with Jesus here! Are you saying that God is at fault when He tells us to test everything?
Anonymous, I also want to address two similar things you said here. First you said:
“They claim the Church Christ founded is protected in its definitive teaching. You can reject that. Just don’t pretend the Protestant side is operating without any human, fallible layer of interpretation.”
No, I’m not pretending anything. I have ALWAYS said throughout my blog that we are ALL fallible. I never said otherwise.
Secondly, you said:
“You’re free to reject the Catholic resolution of it. Just stop pretending the Catholic claim is that the Church invents doctrine and then forces it onto the text.”
I never said (or pretended) that it was a CATHOLIC CLAIM that the Church invents doctrine and forces it onto the text. This was MY claim! I know that the Catholic Church would never say that and I didn’t say it was THEIR claim. You are putting words in my mouth and then accusing me (twice!) of pretention. I don’t appreciate that. I am trying to be fair with you and I expect the same treatment.
Lastly, I have a question:
When you read Scripture and come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the one true church and is infallible, is your interpretation of that passage a sufficient interpretation?
Russell,
DeleteThanks for the continued exchange — I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to reply carefully and keep the conversation going.
On the “which is worse” framing: that doesn’t feel like a real choice to me. No serious thinking Catholic blindly submits to the Church. And the idea that popes have an unhealthy desire for “unity at any cost” just doesn’t ring true, especially in our own day, whatever problems or abuses may have existed in the past.
You noted that the logic cuts both ways — that I don’t get to assume an infallible Magisterium and then use that to dismiss Sola Scriptura. Fair point to raise. But I don’t reject Sola Scriptura because of any Catholic claim about the Magisterium. I reject it because I believe it is bad theology on its own terms.
Regarding the “invents doctrine” point: I accept your clarification that you never presented that as the Church’s own claim, only as your assessment. Still, after reading your blog, the overall impression left is that this is effectively how you see the process working.
Finally, to your question: I do not come to belief in the Church or in the infallibility of its definitive teaching from Scripture alone. It rests on Scripture together with historical study of the early Church and its continuous teaching
Anonymous,
DeleteOk, we're just rehashing things that we said before. I don't think that this discussion is offering anything productive at this point.