To David: Letter 2 to An Anti-Catholic

Dear David,

The second reason you list in your testimony for leaving the Catholic Church was the assertion found in the Catechism for Adults (with which I am unfamiliar) that the bible was not a sufficient guide to salvation. Let us both be honest, there are some passages in Scripture which are not readily understood and which need some serious scrutiny to penetrate. The mere fact that Protestants disagree about the meanings of passages with each other, not to mention with Catholics, is proof of this. The fact that they can come to some agreement is the rationale behind honest and intelligent dialogue.

Forgive me for saying so, but it seems at this point that you begin to talk at cross-purposes. Notice the quotation from the catechism in question, "Can you LEARN to save your soul by just reading the Bible?" (p. 52). It does not say "can you learn HOW to save your soul," a difference which is most important. One does not educate oneself into heaven. If intelligence and learning was the key, the devil would be there still, and Judas besides. The 19th century Protestant social gospel movement assumed that education was the key to forcing God's kingdom into the world. They thought it would of necessity, make people good. As it turned out, we ended up with some of the best educated villains the world had ever seen. Suggesting that one might LEARN to save his soul falls on the same grounds as the event in the Garden whereupon our first parents ate from the forbidden tree of the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil. I am surprised that you did not see the Pelagian thrust in the very idea. We cannot save ourselves, it is entirely the work of Christ.

It may be that the catechism you acquired was not the most expert. Many were published in the 1960's and 70's with serious defects. Nevertheless, returning to the quotation, it reads "... because the Bible does not have everything God taught" (p. 52). Well, certainly the Scriptures themselves testify that there were many other things that Jesus said and did that were not recorded there. Let us be fair to what Catholics actually believe.

It is a tenet of faith that the Scriptures possess all saving truth. The Second Vatican Council taught: "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures" (Dei Verbum 11). The Scriptures you cite are not contradictory to this stance: 2 Timothy 3:15-17 (that Scripture opens us to the gift of faith and salvation in Christ); Romans 1:16 (that it is God who saves believers); and James 1:21 (that we need a saving union with the incarnate Word). Please do not take this wrong, but I suspect that you saw a conflict where none existed. Returning to the subject of intelligibility, several concerns are rushed over that need some mention. Not having the time nor the expertise, I shall only mention them in brief.

1. The books and letters of Scripture were originally written to specific people living in a particular culture at a precise moment in history. Thus, there may be elements that have to be broken open so as to allow more full understanding. (This is not to deny their inspiration or value for the entire Church throughout the ages.)

2. The Scriptures come to us in various translations, each of which is an interpretation of the source material.

3. Because there is not always a clear and immediate understanding of a text, Protestants have developed a treasury of tools to help in translation and interpretation: word studies, commentaries, sermon collections, etc. Although not infallible, all of this constitutes a kind of interpretative authority over the bible.

These concerns were not directly addressed in the essay's Scripture citations. Ephesians 3:2-4 is part of a larger section in which Paul ponders upon his apostolic appointment and the divine plan for salvation in Christ which was revealed to him and now to the Gentiles. While we are assured of the Holy Spirit's aid in apprehending the truth of the Gospel, this is not entirely the same thing as any projected individual infallibility while Scripture reading. 2 Corinthians 1:13 is even more disturbing in your essay. You only quote the first half of the line, "For we write nothing to you that you do not read and understand." The RSV text for the line is as follows: "For we write you nothing but what you can read and understand; I HOPE YOU WILL UNDERSTAND FULLY [13], as you have understood in part, that you can be proud of us as we can be of you, on the day of the Lord Jesus [14]." This addition utterly changes the thrust of the text and admits that one might not fully understand the Scripture message. You next quote Ephesians 5:17 which is wonderful advice for both Catholics and Protestants! We must not remain in ignorance, we are duty-bound to seek out the Lord and to understand his will for us. Such comes from the bible, the model of faith witnessed by our ministers, families, and communities, and by PRAYER. The bible is not simply a "How To" book; the Christian should approach it with reverence and in communication with God. Otherwise, he or she will miss the whole point of it. Not having the catechism you mention, I cannot explore the context of the quotes you make from it. It may be that I misread you and you simply mean that we can find saving truth in the Scriptures. I would agree with this, as does the new universal catechism; however, that is a different concern from the matter of immediate and full understanding of each text. The very nature of the Scriptures, as the inspired Word of God, defies any such categorization by anyone. There may be scholars and religious leaders more attune and aware of the meanings than others; however, the depths of the Word can no more be exhausted than Christ, himself.

You challenge the assertion made on pages 153-154 of The Faith of Millions: "The Bible does not contain all the teaching of the Christian religion, nor does it formulate all the duties of its members." I think I see why I am confused by some of your statements. You are viewing the matter of Church intervention in opposition to the saving truths found in Scripture. Hum. I would suggest that the sufficiency of truths found in the bible for salvation is again an entirely topic than the matter breached by the book just mentioned here. The fact of the matter is that in a practical sense, the bible does not dictate all the duties of the Christian membership. Pastor Smith may have a special job for you. Besides a calling to follow Christ you might also hear a call within a call, like evangelizing on the Internet. The Catholic faith would find little fault with the argument that our general discipleship is set before us in the bible. The problem would be in the various manifestations by which we respond to God. It would seem that the difference upon this question between many Protestant churches and the Catholic Church is one of scope and size. Rules for good order and discipline, the writings and lives of holy men and women throughout the ages, the development of rituals and prayer forms, the distinction of various states of life, etc. would all seem natural and happen even in varying degrees in Protestant communions.

It is true that John 20:30 says that "many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book." But as you conclude in the citation, what was given was deemed sufficient to plant the seed for a saving faith in the Lord. Similarly, you quote John 21:25. You are wrong if you think this contradicts Catholic teaching.

You fault the doctrine of a teaching office in the Catholic Church functioning as the official interpreter of the Scriptures. Okay, but in all that you preach and write, you are also functioning as such an interpreter. Sometimes Protestants can be just as dogmatic as Catholics, too. We say we are open to the ideas and arguments of others, but bend over backwards picking any straw in the wind so as not to falter. It is very comforting for many people to believe that there is an authority where in a mass of confusion, "the buck stops." Having explored Catholic Scripture scholarship of late, it seems to me that there are very few texts, given the whole of the bible, that the Magisterium has given definitive guidance upon. Many of the commentaries and bible dictionaries published under Catholic auspices are authored by teams of Protestant, Jewish, and Catholic experts. Students of faith like myself are well read in Aquinas, Augustine, Luther, Wesley, Calvin, and host of other authorities from our common Christian heritage. The Catholic Church, as Pope John Paul II has remarked, does not have an exclusive patent to the truth.

I will skip the Scripture quotations you piled upon Catholicism toward the end of this section, they have more to say about your dislike for that institution than how God might see it. You might not agree with each and every official take on a Scripture text, although rarely are texts given one and only one level of meaning. However, this same teaching Church has also defended some truths which might be dear to your heart: that there is one God and that he is triune; that Jesus is true God and true Man; that he really suffered, died, and rose again; that his sacrifice on the cross redeems us from the devil; that by faith and baptism we are born again to eternal life; etc. I may be wrong about this sampling in regards to your own faith, if so, which of these magisterial interpretations would you renounce?

Saving other responses for later, I will leave you with a prayer:

Lord Jesus, Man of Sorrows, You are the thorn-crowned Head of the Creation, in whom it has pleased the Father to unite all things in Heaven and upon earth. Have mercy on all those who have been crushed by the pride and ambition of tyrants and grant to a tortured humanity leaders who will combine power and authority with goodness and humility. (We Fly to Thy Patronage - An Ecumenical Guide for Catholics and Orthodox, p. 28).

Peace.
Fr. Joe