SACRED TRADITION’S IDENTITY CRISIS

 

Sacred Tradition is a really big deal in Catholicism.  It is one of the foundational “legs” on which the Catholic Church stands.  According to the Catholic Church’s Vatican II document Dei Verbum:

“Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.” (chapter 2, paragraph 9, emphasis added)

In other words, they are to be considered equal.  So if Scripture is infallible/God-breathed, then (according to them) so is Sacred Tradition.  One is not above the other.

But is there biblical evidence for this Catholic concept of infallible Sacred Tradition?  Catholics will usually point to several Scriptures to make their case, but they will turn to one particular verse more than any other:

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

And Catholics will say, “See, there it is.  We must obey BOTH the oral tradition (“… by word”) and the written tradition (“… [by] our epistle,”), i.e., Scripture.

When Catholics see the terms “oral” and “written” in this context, they treat it as though they are two different (and equal) bodies of information, and that we need BOTH of them to have the complete picture, God’s word in two different forms.  They see Tradition as something outside of, and distinguishable from Scripture, otherwise it is all just the written Word of God.   

A Closer Look at 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Ok, let’s actually look at the context of this passage to see what the apostle Paul is actually saying about this.  Since this is the main and pivotal verse for Catholic Sacred Tradition, we must make sure that we understand Paul.  Here is the context:

In chapter 2, we see that the Thessalonians were disturbed about news they had received, i.e., they were “shaken” and “troubled” (2:2).  Someone made them believe that the Day of the Lord had already come upon them (v. 2), apparently through a letter, falsely claiming to be from Paul.  In this second letter to the Thessalonians, the apostle Paul goes on to calm their fears and he reminds them that he had already told them in person (orally) all about the timing of the Day of the Lord (v. 5) and that they need not worry.  Then, after explaining it to them again in this letter (v. 6-12), he says to hold fast to those traditions (those teachings about the Day of the Lord that he first handed on to them) (v. 15), whether they received them orally, or by writing.  This is important – Paul is telling them that the message he gave to them at the beginning (orally) is the SAME message he was writing to them now!  How could they have forgotten already?  He did not give them two different messages, but the same one in two forms (written and oral)!  He is NOT telling them that we don’t have all of God’s Word unless we have it in both written form and some kind of oral form.  This is where Catholics deviate from Scripture.

Paul is basically asking them, “Why are you so disturbed by this letter that was supposedly from my hand?  Any true letter from me will agree with the message that I already gave to you in person!  I will never contradict the original message I gave to you in person, just as I would never give you a different gospel than the one I already gave to you (e.g., Galatians 1:6-9).”

Paul’s distinction between the two forms was NOT to emphasize a difference in content between the two, but the very opposite – to demonstrate the unity of his message in both forms.  Catholics seem to think that the Word of God is somehow emasculated if it is only contained in infallible writing, but that is certainly not the case.  The point Paul was making here was that you can forever trust what Jesus and the apostles have given you!  His point was not that infallible revelation for the church always has to be in two forms.

But the content of this “oral” aspect of Sacred Tradition is now in question, and this brings us to our main point…

For God’s Sake, Show Us What It Is!

Again, what exactly was/is the content of this “Sacred Tradition”?  The Catholic Church is more than happy to point out the contents of their infallible seventy-three books of Scripture (the written Tradition) to all who would ask.  But many (both Catholics and Protestants) have often asked about the contents of this oral Sacred Tradition, as well.  But curiously, we find that the Catholic Church is unable (or not so anxious) to expose the contents of this “infallible” oral entity.

Oh sure, they’ll give us some incredibly vague, hazy and imprecise “definitions,” for example, it is said to be:

“… not simply a collection of pious practices but the living transmission of Christ’s teaching entrusted to the apostles and perpetuated in the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”  See here:

https://catholicus.eu/en/sacred-tradition-an-unchanging-pillar-of-faith-in-a-changing-world/

But how can the person in the pew gain an understanding of such phraseology?  It seems the Church is purposely being vague when it talks like this.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it.  Through Tradition, ‘the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes… ’” (CCC #78 – emphasis added)

Any honest person has to admit that this is just too nebulous to help anyone to know its content.

Sacred Tradition has also been called “the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church.”  See here:

https://markpshea.com/archive_sheavings/what-is-sacred-tradition/

This is simply more obfuscation.

According to one other source:

“Catholic Tradition is the living transmission of the faith…”

That tells us absolutely nothing meaningful.

“… encompassing teachings, practices and worship passed down from the apostles through the church over centuries…”

Again, nothing.  Which practices/teachings/worship?  And how do we know they actually came from the apostles?  It would sure help if the Catholic Church could be more specific, especially if we are talking about something that is supposedly infallible.  Protestants are not looking for examples of Sacred Tradition, but the whole of it!  Where exactly can this “infallible” information be found?  How can any generation know that the correct information has been properly handed down to them if no one can articulate exactly what it is?

One source calls it an “unbroken transmission of Christ’s revelation” and then names things that are/include non-infallible things (e.g., liturgy, creeds, writings of the church fathers, spiritual practices).  

These are just a tiny sampling of the Catholic Church’s attempt at a usable definition of Sacred Tradition.  But none of these are convincing.  The Church is not being transparent at all and these “definitions” are meaningless!  They might sound good, but are absolutely useless to help the common person understand what its contents actually are.

The Church Retaliates

Ok, when pressed to provide a meaningful definition of Sacred Tradition, the Church will often retaliate with comments like this:

• ·      “Where is ‘Sacred Tradition’ in the Protestant faith?”

If Protestant churches do claim some kind of “Sacred Tradition,” they have the same obligation to show it as the Catholic Church does.  If anyone claims to have any kind of Tradition, it is their responsibility, their burden of proof to show what it is.  You can’t just say something is infallible, and not even be able to tell us what it is!

• ·      Is this really the question for you Protestants… if we Catholics would indeed actually show you the list of all Tradition, the real question is, “Would you then become Catholic?” 

Nice try, but the answer is no.  Asking the Catholic Church to show us what Tradition is, is only the beginning of the work ahead of you!  Answering the “Tradition location question” is just the FIRST step!  There are many, many more logical and biblical issues to settle before any Protestant should even think about becoming Catholic.  By the way, I could reciprocate and ask, “If you Catholics CAN’T show us this list, will YOU become Protestant?

• ·      Your request is unreasonable!  Sacred Tradition is not just a “static” entity that can be “listed,” but is “living,” “unchangeable,” “dynamic,” and it is something that is practiced and it develops over time.  One priest said, “Asking for a list of Sacred Traditions is a bit like asking, ‘What is culture and where can I find a list of it?’  It is not that simple.”

Well, you know what?  Culture has nothing to do with infallibility, while this Tradition supposedly specifically does.  If something is considered infallible, it must be validly identified.  The Catholic Church certainly fails to do that! 

They like to claim that Sacred Tradition is the “lived experience” of the Church, but this is far too broad a description.  Let me ask a question – Wouldn’t the pedophilia in the Catholic Church also be part of the “lived experience” of many of its victims?  So, is THAT rightly considered part of Sacred Tradition, as well?  After all, it is a real experience, isn’t it?  This frequently-used “lived experience” phrase is simply meaningless when describing Sacred Tradition.  There were millions of “lived experiences” in the history of the church, many of which were bad.  The Catholic Church is purposely deflecting the question of what its Tradition is and where it can be found.

Let’s Be Honest

Ok, Catholics, let’s be honest.  If you wanted some specific information from a Protestant, especially if it was claimed to be infallible, and the Protestant answered you with such vague and meaningless terms like the Church does, you would (rightly) accuse him of deflecting or withholding the desired information.  You would claim that he was simply obfuscating and insulting your intelligence with such phrases.

And this is exactly what happens when Catholics tell us that Sacred Tradition is “the living transmission of the faith,” or “the common life, worship and teaching of the Catholic faith,” or “the unbroken transmission of Christ’s revelation,” etc., etc.  These are simply nebulous and meaningless descriptions of something that is supposed to be equal to Scripture!  The fact that you withhold any meaningful description of this Tradition, shows us that you don’t really know exactly what it is.  Otherwise, you’d be glad to tell us.

Conclusion

Does anyone, especially the common man, have time to read/research 2000 years of church history?  Because it seems that this is what it would take for one to have any clue of what “Sacred Tradition” is.

If Sacred Tradition is THAT “living” and THAT “dynamic,” and THAT elusive and uncertain – if it’s THAT hard to pin down, then we have an obligation to proclaim that no such entity can claim, by any biblical standard, to be infallible.

When Cardinal Guidi of Bologna pointed out to Pope Pius IX that his (the pope’s) views on papal infallibility were not supported by Sacred Tradition, Pius roared, “I AM TRADITION!”  In one short statement, the pope said out loud what everybody already knew: that Tradition, in effect, is whatever the pope says it is!  But the corrupt and power-hungry Pope Pius IX was at least more honest about the definition of Sacred Tradition than the Church has ever been.  Pius, in his private meeting with Guidi, didn’t try to sugarcoat it or offer vague and nonsensical definitions, as we see so many do today.

It seems that none of the Church’s popes, councils, “infallible” documents, or its modern apologists are able to convincingly identify this elusive and baffling entity the Church calls Tradition.  Therefore, Sacred Tradition, a foundational claim of the Catholic Church, suffers an identity crisis about which Catholics should be quite embarrassed.

 

THE LONELY PILGRIM AND SACRED TRADITION

 

I have recently run across an article by a Catholic person whose blog is identified as the “Lonely Pilgrim.”  On his blog, he has some thoughtful articles and he seems to be very intelligent and down-to-earth.  The article I want to address today is titled, “What Sacred Tradition Is and Is Not: 7 Answers to Common Misconceptions” and you can find it here:

http://lonelypilgrim.com/2013/09/07/what-sacred-scripture-is-and-is-not-answers-to-some-common-misunderstandings/

Oral Versus Written

I would love to respond to every item in his article, but that would make my response way too long.  So, I’ll just try to hit some of the main points.

He starts off saying that “Sacred Tradition – including Sacred Scripture – started out as oral tradition.”

Ok, no problem.  It is true that the contents of the Bible were first received orally (spoken) before they were ever written down.  Most things do start off that way.  That’s not an issue and it doesn’t prove anything against the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, by the way.

Next, the Lonely Pilgrim points out the fact that not everything that Jesus and the apostles said or did was written down (i.e., in Scripture).  He says:

“But what do you suppose happened to all the stories of the other things Jesus said and taught and did, all the other things that Paul and the Apostles taught? …Everything that came from the mouth of Jesus was the Word of God. Did it cease to be the Word of God, cease to be Divine Revelation, because it was among those ‘many other signs Jesus did’?”

Ok, good questions, and he is, of course, referring to John 20:30-31 that says that there was much, much more information about Jesus than what is contained in John’s gospel.  Now, no one is saying that what Jesus said (apart from the Bible) stopped being Divine Revelation – but the problem is that no one knows with certainty exactly what all was said in the first place!  Catholics are willing to take the word of certain men (who, by the Lonely Pilgrim’s own admission, were not speaking infallibly) and put some of what they said on the same level as Scripture.     

Now, of course, many from the early church claimed to know what Jesus said.  What they’re telling us He said may, or may not, be accurate.  Now, no doubt, they got at least some of the things right that Jesus and the apostles said.  After all, some of them lived in the same time period.  Nevertheless, “closer in time” does not necessarily mean that everything they claimed that Jesus taught was true (John 21:20-23).

The Lonely Pilgrim then states that these sayings of Jesus were remembered and passed down to the following generations.  So, he is implying that all these things that were spoken and done by Jesus (while never written) were indeed known and kept by the early church.  But since they were not written, they couldn’t be considered Scripture, so they had to fall under another “infallible” category, one created by the Catholic Church – Sacred Tradition.  It seems that the Catholic Church saw an opportunity here, and they latched on to it.  But it is always dangerous to assign infallibility to something so vague, to such a body of information that they can’t even tell us what it is!

Transparency?

The Lonely Pilgrim says:

“Protestant critics complain that ‘tradition’ is something nebulous and undefined that Catholics can say is whatever they want it to be.”

And he then boasts:

“I have never seen an organization [the Catholic Church] go to greater lengths to be open and transparent as to the content and basis of its doctrines.”

He then goes on to mention the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Church documents and Church fathers, and how they can all be easily found online.  He seems to boast of the “availability” of the Catholic Church’s sources, but this all begs the question…

A Clear Definition?

Ok, so the big question is this: What exactly were all those unwritten things Jesus said and did?  Can any Catholic tell us every word?  Can anyone know for sure, or tell us infallibly?  No, the best they can do with such information (that’s not in the Bible) is read what the fathers said that Jesus said.  But that certainly doesn’t imply any kind of infallibility. 

As far as the content of Sacred Tradition, some of the Catholic Church’s “definitions” include “the living and growing truth,” or “the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the whole Church.”  The Second Vatican Council says that Tradition is “all that she herself [the Catholic Church] is, all that she believes.” (Dei Verbum, chapter. 2, paragraph 8).

THIS is supposed to be meaningful?  Is this as understandable and exact as they can make it?  If so, is it any wonder why Protestants complain about Sacred Tradition being nebulous or unclear?  These “definitions” are not telling us anything.  Sorry, but that’s not being “open” and “transparent” about the contents of your Sacred Tradition. 

Remember, we’re talking about teaching that is supposedly inspired and infallible here.  When he mentions the Catechism (above) as Tradition, is the Lonely Pilgrim saying that every part of the Catechism is inspired?  I certainly hope not.  If not, then which parts?  I don’t think anyone can tell us, and I know of no infallible list of those parts.    

But maybe we can find the perfect definition of Tradition in Pope Pius IX, who was speaking with Cardinal Guidi of Bologna about popes having infallibility.  The Cardinal pointed out that the idea of “papal infallibility” did not agree with Church Tradition.  So the pope arrogantly roared, “I AM TRADITION!”  Yep, I think this pretty much sums it up.  In essence, he was saying, “Who are you to tell me what Tradition says?  Whatever I, the Vicar of Christ, want Tradition to be is Tradition!”  This speaks volumes.

Tradition Inspired?

Not only does the Catholic Church seem to say that they have all the words of Jesus and the apostles in Sacred Tradition (which is not true), but also that this “deposit of faith” is equal to Scripture.  After all, Sacred Tradition is also considered by Catholics as “the Word of God.”  The official Catholic document, Dei Verbum, chapter 2, paragraph 9, says:

“Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.” (Emphasis mine)

So that, to me, means that Dei Verbum is saying the two would have to be equal.  But interestingly, the Lonely Pilgrim says that Scripture and Tradition don’t have “equal authority,” because they have “different characters.”  So, it seems he is free to disagree with a statement that the Catholic Church considers infallible. 

It is also interesting that only the Catholic Church can authentically interpret this Sacred Tradition (CCC #100)!  Hmmm.  Seems to be self-serving, doesn’t it?

The Lonely Pilgrim claims:

“The Church Fathers are not Sacred Tradition, but they do contain Sacred Tradition. “

Well, he needs to demonstrate exactly WHICH PARTS of the fathers’ teachings are infallible.  Can he give us all of them, so we can know?  Sorry, but just throwing a bunch quotes into a pile, calling it the “deposit of faith,” and saying that “Sacred Tradition” is somewhere in there just doesn’t cut it. 

Concerning the fathers, the Lonely Pilgrim admits:

“And sometimes they are plain wrong. Sometimes, many times, the Church Fathers even disagree with each other! But it is the things they agree upon, the core of apostolic teachings, that we receive as Sacred Tradition.”

Agreeing upon a core of “apostolic” teachings is fine if they are indeed apostolic.  And if they are, they will be consistent with Scripture.  The Bible tells us to test all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21), including Tradition.  When determining doctrine, Scripture is not tested by Tradition, but Tradition is tested by Scripture (Mark 7:1-13), thus showing they are not equal.

Furthermore, when you read the fathers, how do you know that you have interpreted them correctly, since they are a long way off from our culture (as Lonely Pilgrim stated elsewhere in his article about Scripture interpretation)?  If it is hard to interpret Scripture (as Catholics often claim), why should it be any easier to interpret the fathers, since they use language quite different from our own?

Taking Liberties with Scripture

As I said above, the key passage from which all this stems is John 20:30-31:

“Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book.  But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.”

Now folks, let’s take a deep breath and put aside any preconceived Catholic or Protestant ideas, and just take this passage at face value. 

What is the intention of the apostle John here?  He is revealing the purpose of his book/gospel in this passage so that the reader might believe in Christ and have eternal life.  That’s it. 

He’s not saying that there are many other signs that Jesus did and the church fathers will have all this external information.  He’s not saying that the reader can find these signs in some other (infallible) source.  He’s not saying that we are obligated to hunt for and collect all these acts to preserve them for the church.  And he’s not saying that we need to gather them into some new infallible category alongside Scripture.  

No, he’s simply saying that there were too many deeds, sayings and signs to be included in his book.  In fact, there are more than could ever be collected on earth (John 21:25), but these (in John’s gospel) are sufficient to cause one to believe.  Reading anything else into the passage is irresponsible Bible interpretation.

Conclusion

If anyone says he has access to everything Jesus ever said, he is a liar.  No person, institution, or church has this information.  The point is, we don’t need access to everything that Jesus ever said.  But Scripture is sufficient to equip us for every good work when it comes to doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

In other words, correct doctrine comes from Scripture, not Tradition.  That doesn’t mean that we can’t learn things from the fathers, history or Tradition, but these things will not be infallible like Scripture is.

I am not saying that the things He said (outside of Scripture) were unimportant, but that we just don’t have access to all of them.  Each and every one of these things He said were no doubt very important and infallible – and none of it returned void, but it accomplished its godly goal (Isaiah 55:11).

But what we see is Catholics taking liberties with this passage (John 20:30-31) and making unfounded assumptions.  They think that every time Scripture uses, or alludes to, the term “tradition” in a positive sense, it is talking of Catholic “Sacred Tradition.”  But that’s just begging the question.

We have asked the one question about Sacred Tradition that they never can seem to answer: What exactly is Sacred Tradition?  Don’t give us examples of it, but tell us exactly what it contains.  All of it, not some nebulous, ever-increasing and growing entity that changes year by year through “development of doctrine.”

That is the Protestant challenge to Catholics.

There is so much more I would have liked to have covered in Lonely Pilgrim’s article, but I will stop here.  Perhaps, if there is enough interest from readers to address more of it, I may do a “Part 2.”

See also this article on Tradition:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html

JOHN MARTIGNONI’S LOSING BATTLE

 

I’ve previously devoted several of my articles to addressing comments made by Catholic apologist and speaker John Martignoni, who maintains the Bible Christian Society newsletter.  Today, we will deal with his Newsletter #410.  You can find it here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/586-apologetics-for-the-masses-410-private-interpretation-of-the-bible-vs-church-teaching

John often speaks about how Protestants (who admit to being fallible) will have a problem correctly interpreting Scripture, while claiming it is not an issue with Catholics.  He emphasizes that what the Protestant believes depends entirely on his private, fallible interpretation of the Bible, while the Catholic can rest confidently in the authority of the Catholic Church for correct interpretations.

In this particular newsletter, he gets a question from someone named “Cary L.” who asks:

“Why is your potentially fallible decision to trust the claims of the Roman Catholic Church for your salvation correct?

John Martignoni states that it is an excellent question, and I agree!  In fact, I don’t think that John (or any other Catholic) can adequately answer it the way he wants to without violating Scripture or common sense.

First Things First

But John requests that Cary first deal with a question of his (John’s) own:

“If you are not infallible in your interpretation of Scripture, then how do you have any sure way of knowing what is and is not authentic Christian doctrine and practice?”

Ok, so let me try to adequately answer John Martignoni’s question to Cary L.  It’s about certainty.  The question is assuming that infallibility is a must to be able to know basic Christian doctrine.  But this doesn’t follow.  This is the same old false dichotomy that some Catholic apologists use over and over: 1) either your interpretation is infallible (i.e., unable to err), or 2) it has to be wrong.  It is as though there is no third option.  But every single person is fallible, yet, many times a person gets the interpretation correct!  Just because an interpretation could possibly be wrong doesn’t mean that it will indeed be wrong.

Post-apostolic Christians don’t have infallibility, but we don’t need it to have enough certainty to come to the knowledge of the truth, or to be saved.  We only need a sufficient amount of certainty. 

Are there some passages more difficult than others?  Yes, there are (2 Peter 3:15-16).  Do we get it wrong sometimes?  Yes, we may.  And you may say, “That’s not very reassuring if it’s possible that we can be wrong!”  But that’s what Bible study is for, and nowhere in that Bible are we told that we need infallibility to interpret a Bible verse.  In fact, Scripture points out that the common person can indeed understand it.  Jesus expected exactly that!  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/07/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-6.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/search?q=interpretation

In fact, it was mostly the common people who listened to and followed Jesus.  Basic hermeneutical concepts (i.e., Bible interpretation principles) and common sense go a long way here. 

What’s the Difference?

Ok, back to Cary’s question.  Cary is basically asking: “Isn’t the reasoning of the Catholic who is trusting in his understanding of Church teachings just as fallible as the reasoning of the Protestant who is trusting in his understanding of Scripture?  The answer is yes, indeed.

But Martignoni is saying no, it isn’t.  He says that what Protestants do “does not at all equate with my accepting the teachings of the Catholic Church as being authoritative and infallible.”  In other words, the Protestant has a problem, but the Catholic can’t go wrong when trusting in his “infallible” church. 

Supposedly, Protestants can’t read and understand infallible Scripture with certainty, yet Catholics can confidently read and understand their church’s “infallible” teaching.  But how is it that the Catholic is supposed to somehow have more certainty than the Protestant?  He doesn’t.  There is no difference.  Even if they end up with an infallible source, they still both have to begin with their fallible reasoning.

Martignoni’s “Infallibility”

John Martignoni goes on to state that he is indeed infallible in his first-hand knowledge of some things, for example, he “infallibly” knows that he is married, that he lives in Birmingham, that 2+2=4, etc. 

He further says that he can know something infallibly about matters of which he has second-hand knowledge, like the speed of light, the fuel for the sun, the year of the death of George Washington, etc.

Ok, I get his point, but these last things he mentioned would have less certainty, since some scientists, researchers, historians and authorities may have actually got some of their information wrong.  It happens from time to time.

But, of course, the infallibility that we are concerned with here is not about these things.  We are speaking of having infallible certainty in spiritual and moral matters.  No one but God has this level of certainty.  But again, He does give humans sufficient certainty in spiritual matters (1 John 5:13).

But John’s whole point, I think, is that the things he mentioned here are told to us by an “authoritative” source (scientists, researchers, historians, etc.).  So, apparently, according to John, if it’s based on some authority, it must be true, correct?  And of course, depending on an authoritative source is exactly what John will claim, concerning the Catholic Church.  He also makes a big deal over Cary’s admission of fallibility, and he keeps throwing it back into Cary’s face.  But fallibility is not necessarily a weakness when it comes to Bible interpretation.  We all have fallibility and Martignoni needs to stop pretending that Catholics are somehow immune to it, just because they believe their Church to be infallible. 

Double Standard

We use our fallible reasoning daily in everything we do, and most people use it effectively.  By the way, every type of communication has to be interpreted.  And the Catholic, just like the Protestant, is obligated to use his own fallible, “non-authoritative,” “private” understanding to interpret not only the Bible, but also to interpret his own church’s teachings.  Again, no one has moral infallibility today, and it doesn’t take such a gift to have a sufficient amount of certainty.  There is no getting around this fact, in spite of what John Martignoni says.  There is a double standard being used here.

All Christians should use the Scriptures to evaluate their own church’s teaching.  1 Thessalonians 5:21 says to “… test all things.”  But this does not apply only to the leaders, but to the “laity,” as well.  Checks and balances.

The problem is that John has been pushing his version of “fallibility-can’t-produce-certainty” for a long time.  He refuses to give up his argument, but he is still wrong on this. 

Biblical “Proof” of the Need for an Infallible Magisterium?

He then demeans the God-breathed Scriptures when he tells Cary:

“The Scriptures reflect the tradition of the Christian faith, they are not the source of the Christian faith, as you make them out to be.” (Emphasis mine)

Ok, first of all, I’ve never seen a Catholic who can actually fully define this Sacred Tradition.  You can’t trust in it if you can’t accurately tell us what all it contains.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html

Second, the Christian faith is indeed encapsulated in Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  This is how we know what the true Christian faith is, and this is also how we detect false doctrine.

John proceeds to mention a couple of Bible passages to attempt to prove that we need more than just the Bible.  He uses Nehemiah 8:1-8 to suggest that it was the leaders in this passage (like in the Catholic Magisterium) who had to explain what the Book of the Law was saying.  But we have to remember that, in this context, these Jews had just returned from Babylon (whose language had become ingrained in their minds for many years while there).  Many of those Jews grew up with the Babylonian language.  But the Book of the Law was written in Hebrew, so, many Jews in that seventy-year exile had to now “brush up” on their native language, while some could probably speak very little Hebrew!  That’s why the Jewish leaders had to expound/translate the Law for the people.  So, this passage does not at all prove that we need an infallible magisterium to interpret for us.

Again, John Martignoni also uses Acts 8:30-31 for the same purpose.  In this passage, the Ethiopian eunuch is reading the book of Isaiah aloud, and Philip asks the eunuch if he understands what he is reading.  The eunuch responds, “How can I unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8:31).   Catholics will often respond, “See, there it is!  We need an infallible Magisterium to interpret Scripture for us.” 

But, to use the words of John Martignoni, “Not so fast!”  Philip was NOT an apostle, a pope, or part of an infallible magisterium, but simply a deacon in the church (Acts 6:5)!  So why does John use this passage to try to prove a magisterium?  Is there some intentional deception going on here? 

Furthermore, these passages that John quoted do not negate the abundance of verses showing that the common man is expected to understand Scripture, as revealed in the links above.

Later on, John points out more passages to demonstrate that the (Catholic) Church has authority to bind and loose (Matthew 16:19), to decide between disputes (Matthew 18:15-19), to teach with authority (Luke 10:16), etc., etc., to suggest that the Catholic Church fits all that criteria.  But most of these points are addressed in the following links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/10/matthew-16-keys-binding-and-loosing.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/09/matthew-16-who-or-what-is-rock.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/09/pillar-and-foundation.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/08/hi-jacking-of-john-2023.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/apostolic-succession.html

John’s attempt to use Scripture to show that the Catholic Church is infallible falls far short of its goal.

John’s System

It’s a losing battle, but John gives it his best shot and waxes eloquent in his explanation of how he arrives at his conclusion:

“My theological system is based on the teachings of the 2000-year old Catholic Church which I believe, after careful consideration of the available evidence, and there is a lot of evidence - historical, scriptural, logical, etc. - was founded by Jesus Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit and operates with the authority of Jesus Christ which He Himself gave to it.”

But unfortunately, John had to use his fallible reasoning, step by step, to come to this conclusion!  This happens in each of those steps in this process, yet John thinks he is bypassing this issue of man’s fallibility.  He is not.

John Martignoni greatly downplays fallibility, but if it weren’t for his fallible reasoning, he would have never discovered his “infallible Church” (even though his conclusion is wrong).  So, if John’s fallible reasoning is good enough to get him to that conclusion (after plowing through the logical data, Scripture, tons of church history, studying the multitude of church fathers, studying Sacred Tradition, etc., etc.), wouldn’t that same fallible reasoning be good enough to simply read and understand Scripture in the first place?  If your fallible reasoning can help you navigate through all that, you should be able to trust it to understand and interpret Scripture.  Apparently, the Catholic Church can’t trust you to read Scripture directly, but they can trust you to go through all the above process with no issues!  Interesting logic.

Conclusion

It is not only John Martignoni, but there are many Catholic apologists that emphasize the Catholic Church’s ability to “infallibly interpret” the Bible. 

We need to ask, though, exactly how much of the Bible is actually interpreted infallibly by the Church?  No one really knows, since Catholics disagree on the number of verses with such a status.  But know this for sure… it is only an incredibly tiny fraction of the Scriptures that the Catholic Church has interpreted with such certainty!  If infallible interpretation is so critical (and the Catholic Church seems to think that it is), then why are so few verses rendered as “infallibly” determined?  What about the “certainty” of the rest of the verses in the Bible? 

If you appeal to common sense (or something like it) then why can’t Protestants do the same thing?  The Catholic’s certainty is not any greater than ours.  See also this link:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/10/martignoni-and-authority-to-interpret.html

Catholics will say, “But if you misunderstand something in Scripture, the ‘Living Church’ can correct you, unlike the Bible.” 

But misunderstandings don’t just happen to Protestants. 
There are plenty Catholics who also misunderstand “infallibly-interpreted” Church teachings.

But the Bible is indeed a living book (Hebrews 4:12), given to us by the Word of God, Himself (John 1:1), and its words will judge us on the last day (John 12:48).  It is not the Catholic Catechism that will judge us on the last day.  And neither will the Catholic Church.  It will be the words of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, penned inside the greatest book the world has ever known.  It is a miraculous, God-proven and God-breathed book (2 Timothy 3:16), with its contents perfectly interwoven by God.  And if a person studies it, he will soon see that it does indeed correct misunderstandings, if you take it in context, and in its totality.  It is a life-changing book of such great magnitude, yet it can be understood sufficiently by mere humans whose hearts are right.

So what’s the answer when we disagree with someone else about Bible passages?  Horror of horrors [for some Catholics], it simply comes down to us debating the Bible using our fallible minds (along with decent biblical hermeneutics, common sense and a humble attitude -Luke 8:15).

John Martignoni, I hope that you will be humble enough to recognize (and admit!) that your worn-out arguments about man’s uncertainty due to his fallibility don’t hold water.  Stop misleading your audience.  Since this is a losing battle for any Catholic, let’s put this false teaching to rest.

NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH?

When discussing salvation, the Catholic Church sometimes uses the term “extra ecclesiam nulla salus.”  This is a Latin phrase meaning “outside the Church there is no salvation.”  In Scripture, the word “church” means “called out ones,” and it refers to believers / saints (Acts 2:47), i.e., all those who are saved, throughout the world (Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:17-18), and sometimes it refers to the local assembly of believers (1 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:2; Revelation chapters 1 and 2).

If the biblical definition of “the church” is what is meant in this Latin slogan, then it is somewhat redundant.  It is like saying that there are no Christians outside Christianity.  But that is self-evident.  But what does the Catholic Church mean by “the Church” in this context?  Are they referring to all true believers, no matter what denomination or group you belong to?  No, when they say “the Church” here, they mean only the Catholic Church, the organization / institution headed by the Vatican in Rome, the supposed “One True Church.”  They are claiming that no one outside the Catholic Church can be saved.  If there is any doubt about this definition, here are just a few official Catholic sources to prove the point:

• In the Lateran Council (A.D. 1215), Pope Innocent III wrote about the Catholic Church:  “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved…” (Emphasis added)

• On November 18, 1302, Pope Boniface VIII wrote in a papal encyclical / bull called “Unam Sanctam”:  “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff [the pope].” (Emphasis added)

• In 1441, at the Council of Florence, Pope Eugene IV, in the papal bull, “Cantate Domino,” wrote:  “It [the Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock… ” 

• The Catechism of the Catholic Church, teaches the same concept, but in a softer, less abrasive, more ecumenical language, “reformulated positively.” CCC #846, quoting the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium (LG 14), says:  “Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council [Vatican II] teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation…” (Emphasis added)

In the past, the Catholic Church has hurled many anathemas (declarations of condemnation) toward Protestants and other non-Catholics.  But it seems that today it is not as blunt as it used to be, but is more concerned now about using ecumenical, “separated brethren” language that is not as offensive.  However, the point remains.  They are clearly telling us that one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church to make it into Heaven.  They’re not saying that all Catholics are saved, but that only faithful Catholics are.

However, in all fairness, the Catholic Church does also teach that a non-Catholic can still possibly be saved, if he is “invincibly ignorant” about the Church, “through no fault of his own” (CCC #847).  We can agree with the concept that a person who has never heard of Jesus Christ (and perhaps never will) can still be saved if he reaches out for God (Acts 17:26-27; Romans 1:18-20).  But these people are the exceptions to the rule.  We don’t have a problem with these exceptions.  But we do have a problem with the Catholic Church claiming that the norm is that no one is saved apart from the Catholic Church.  That’s an extraordinary claim, and as we’ve said many times before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  But biblical proof of this teaching is not to be found.

Catholicism’s concept of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” exists because of their belief that they are the “One True Church,” as mentioned earlier.  And why do they say this?  Mainly because they believe:

• The Catholic Church has all the right sacraments. 

• The Catholic Church has “Sacred Tradition.” 

• The Catholic Church has a leader in the pope who unifies its people, backed by apostolic succession.

• The Catholic Church has the “four marks of the true church,” and therefore, the fullness of the truth.

But we would respond in this way:

  1) Concerning the sacraments, it is (supposedly) through these that one can obtain and maintain eternal life, especially baptism, the Eucharist, and confession to a priest.  For the Catholic, the sacraments are inseparably tied into salvation (CCC #1129).  But there are some major problems with this system of salvation by works.  See here: 

 

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/01/sacraments-gods-grace-for-sale.html

  2) Concerning “Sacred Tradition,” not only does this teaching have some special problems, it has an identity crisis, as well.  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html

  3) Concerning the concept of a pope, there is nothing in Scripture that teaches there is such a person or such a position in the church.  Furthermore, the Catholic Church’s concept of “apostolic succession” is not scriptural either, and it is morally and historically unsustainable.  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/apostolic-succession.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/05/does-catholic-church-have-four-marks-of_25.html

  4)  Concerning the “four marks of the true church,” the Catholic Church cannot claim either the fullness of the truth, nor can it claim all four marks.  Actually, they cannot even claim one of the marks in the way they define them.  See here for a four-part series of articles addressing this topic:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/02/there-aremany-important-choices-that-we.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/03/does-catholic-church-have-four-marks-of_28.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/04/does-catholic-church-have-four-marks-of.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/05/does-catholic-church-have-four-marks-of_25.html

In conclusion, this idea that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is a trap; it is just as much a trap as Eve’s temptation in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:1-6).  The temptations may not be the same, but the end result is:  spiritual death (Genesis 2:16-17).

When a person joins the Catholic Church, he is hoping to obtain eternal life, but if he is faithful to the Church’s teachings, he will only have a system which attempts to gain salvation through faith plus works - a network of bondage that enslaves its members from cradle to grave.  It is a method in which there is no power to save.  It is precisely the type of system that the Apostle Paul warned us about in Galatians 1:8-9, one which condemns the individual because it attempts to add our pitiful, imperfect works to the perfect, complete, and absolutely sufficient work that Jesus did on the cross (Romans 5:9; Hebrews 9:11-14; 10:16-20).

The bottom line is that “No Salvation outside the Catholic Church” is an arrogant and unscriptural concept that has burdened and entangled millions of souls.  So, dear friend, what will you do?  Will you give in to the many unproven claims of the Catholic Church… or will you submit to the simple gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16)?