An Apologetics Course . . . The Rule Of Faith Is The Church’s Teaching Authority

By RAYMOND DE SOUZA, KM

Part 30

In order to finish the discussion on the revolution caused by Martin Luther nearly 500 years ago, let us consider his first major dogma, namely, sola Scriptura. Any Catholic — especially The Wanderer readers — who want to take their faith seriously and apply the criteria laid down by John Paul II in his encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) must apply reason to Luther’s concept of “faith” in order to dispel any misapprehension about this important issue.
The primordial fact is that Jesus Christ did not give us the Gospel, let alone the whole Bible, as the first and only rule of faith. He gave us the Church, endowed with bishops who exercised authority from the very beginning. Read the Acts of the Apostles to verify St. Peter’s use of authority. But Luther concocted the idea that the reading of the Bible by the individual Christian is sufficient for him to know the truth. Consequently, Church authority would be seen as a man-made invention, imposed upon the people by the rapacious papists.
So, the authority of the apostles over the flock was replaced by the individual reading of the Bible — and the Holy Spirit is supposed to assist every Christian to come to know the truth. Now, this is precisely the fundamental root error of Protestantism. From Luther down to this day, other Protestants have come up with a different sect or church or affiliation or whatever, at times even to the point of denying the divinity of Christ, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the Virgin Birth, the existence of the soul after death — anything goes by private interpretation.
Some churches have agreed to abide by certain basic fundamental points, but it is their private choice. Other churches also quote the Bible and reach different conclusions. The most common objection against Church authority and in defense of the individual reading and interpretation of the Bible is this famous quotation from St. Paul (2 Tim. 3:16-7):
“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” Therefore, evangelicals conclude with a triumphant smile, “The Bible alone is sufficient.”
Let us demolish their reply with these points:
First of all, St. Paul did not say: “All Scripture, and Scripture alone, is sufficient.” No, he did not say that. He said it was “profitable,” for those various purposes, meaning useful, valuable, beneficial, convenient, suitable, advantageous, expedient, worthwhile, but definitely not sufficient! He did not exclude everything else.
In other words, this text says the Scriptures are “profitable” for certain purposes, such as teaching, reproof, correction, training in righteousness. But it does not say that they alone will suffice or that they are the sole rule of faith.
It says all Scripture is inspired by God. Yes, it is, but it does not say “Scripture alone” is inspired by God, let alone by individual reading and interpretation; when the prophets spoke they were also inspired by God. Luther had an attachment to the word “alone.”
The text does not say that God commissioned every individual Christian to speak in His name; neither does it say that God never commissions anyone else to speak in His name. On the contrary, the great commission given to the apostles at the end of St. Matthew’s Gospel states very clearly: “Go and preach to all nations. . . .”
The same St. Paul elsewhere insists on his oral teaching: 2 Thess. 2:15: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle.” Here St. Paul makes it abundantly clear that his teachings come from two sources: one written, his epistles, and the other oral, his preaching. Conclusion: The Bible alone is not sufficient to know all of St. Paul’s teachings.
More: In 2 Tim. 2:2, he teaches: “And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” The “things” he refers to are evidently his teachings, which the men heard from him — not read what he had written — and he exhorts those men of good hearing to pass them on to others, to faithful men, who will, in turn, teach them to others. And this is called the apostolic succession, as far as bishops are concerned.
The preceding verse, 3:15, shows St. Paul was speaking of the Old Testament when he referred to “All Scriptures”: “from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation.” Now, the only “sacred writings” that Timothy knew were the books of the Old Testament, of course, because the New One had not yet been written. So, if we are to conclude that the Old Testament is sufficient for everything good, then we could just as well drop the New Testament as unnecessary, alongside the Church authority.
Suppose he meant the body of writings called the “New Testament” already in existence; however, some of it, including later epistles by St. Paul himself, did not yet exist. So one should have only the New Testament books up to the letter to Timothy — this approach, if taken logically to its consequences, leads to absurdity. But from Luther, what else would you expect?
The canon of the Bible as we know it was only recognized 300 years later. In the meantime, the preaching of the Church sufficed beautifully — then as now. The teaching of the Church rests upon both sources of revelation: the written one and the oral one. Hence we have the Magisterium, the teaching body of the Church. True enough, some of those charged with the mission of teaching sometimes do a disgraceful job, even in our days, but it does not change the nature of the Church regarding the Bible.
Historically speaking nobody, but nobody really and truly in the whole history of Christianity, from the apostles’ time to Luther’s parents dating after Mass on Sunday, has ever, ever, mentioned this strange idea of denying Church authority and going by one’s own private interpretation of the Bible. This idea — a heresy in fact — has caused a torrent of confusion, fragmentation, division among baptized Christians. Today’s cacophony of religions calling themselves “Christian” suffices to prove it ad nauseam.
Next article: The Orthodox Churches.

+ + +

(Raymond de Souza is an EWTN program host; regional coordinator for Portuguese-speaking countries for Human Life International [HLI]; president of the Sacred Heart Institute, and a member of the Sovereign, Military, and Hospitaller Order of the Knights of Malta. His website is: www. RaymonddeSouza.com.)