Are Catholics Interpreting Scripture without Magisterial Authorization?

There is a frequent charge by Protestants that whenever a Catholic presents Scriptural evidence for any particular doctrine, rather than engage the passage in question and interpretation of it, the Protestant simply responds by saying something to the effect, "is that your private interpretation, or did the Magisterium infallibly interpret this verse for you?" The intent is to neutralize the Catholic argument by re-directing the issue onto that of infallibility.

This Protestant "response" is simply misguided. It fails to distinguish and understand the Catholic approach to Scripture and the Catholic objection to the Protestant error known commonly as "private interpretation." The truth is, both Catholics and Protestants are guided by a teaching traditionally called the Analogy of Faith (the classical meaning of the term 'analogy' is 'proportion' or 'rule'). The Analogy of Faith is the teaching that all theological interpretation must be done in harmony with the Church's defined doctrines. This means that the Church doesn't need to infallibly interpret every single passage of Scripture, but rather only needs to set up certain 'parameters' (i.e. dogmas) from which to read Scripture in light of. One of the preeminent examples - which both Catholics and Protestants would readily agree upon - of the Analogy being used is the quote from St John's Gospel where Jesus says, "The Father is greater than I." Knowing that the Church teaches Christ is a Divine Person with a Divine and human nature, the Analogy of Faith tells us that we cannot interpret Jesus' saying in such a way as to contradict that dogma.

The point of real divergence is that Protestants don't have a definite way of establishing dogma, where as the Catholics do (via the Magisterium). The result is that Protestants have less definite 'parameters' to operate within, leading to widely divergent interpretations of Scripture. That said, the Protestant Dogma of Sola Fide (Justification by Faith Alone) is the most important unique 'parameter' when it comes to Protestants interpreting Scripture. A good example of a Protestant using their own Analogy is when they approach James 2:24, in which the Protestant knows they must interpret this passage so as to not contradict Sola Fide.

Back to the original point: when a Catholic presents a text of Scripture to demonstrate or prove a given concept or teaching, they need not have a specific Magisterial interpretation of that verse, since the Church allows doctrines to be demonstrated or defended in any legitimate manner - particularly by applying the Analogy of Faith.

The issue of infallibility (i.e. authoritative interpretation) comes into play when defining the dogmas in the first place. A classic example of the need for authoritative interpretation (aka infallibility) is when examining the Biblical phrase "This is My Body." While the phrase is perfectly intelligible, what is not "clear" is whether this is to be taken literally, figuratively, or somewhere in-between. While many modern day Protestants would say the actual interpretation is ultimately "non-essential" to salvation and thus one is free to hold any view, historically Protestants have had bitter disputes over how to view this saying. Generally, the Anglicans and Lutherans hold to a mostly literal view, the Calvinists hold to a view between literal and figurative, and the Baptists hold to a mostly figurative view. Since none of these views directly contradict Sola Fide, the Analogy doesn't help one way or the other, and ultimately an authoritative interpretation (by a Magisterium) is necessary to settle the dispute.

At this point, only the Catholic position makes sense, since the Catholic position openly affirms the existence and necessity of a Magisterium. If Sola Scriptura were true, then Scripture alone would have been clear enough to settle the dispute. As it stands, Scripture is not formally sufficient, as the "This is My Body" example plainly demonstrates.

Council of Nicæa Proves Papacy

The Papacy is one of the most decisive (and divisive) issues in Christendom, particularly in determining whether or not the Catholic Church is the One True Church. While much can be said as far as the Scriptural support goes, the testimony of Tradition is just as powerful in this regard, most notably the testimony of the early Ecumenical Councils.

At this point many Eastern Orthodox and Protestants would object, saying that the Councils actually suggest the opposite, namely that the Bishop of Rome did not have the authority Catholics claim. One of the leading examples appealed to is the 6th Canon of the Council of Nicaea, which says (quoting only the most relevant portion):

The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved.

Now there is some slightly different translations of certain terms of this canon, but this rendering is generally accepted. Reading this canon for the first time, many get the impression the Bishop of Rome is simply one bishop among others with no unique authority, directly undermining the notion of Papal Supremacy. This is the common take on this passage by Eastern Orthodox and Protestants.

The problem the Protestant is in is that even if their rendering were correct, the fact remains that this canon clearly teaches the Bishop of Rome has some high ranking authority, with the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch on some sort of equal footing. In other words, the early Church (as testified by this most important Council) was clearly one of a hierarchy of bishops, including very high ranking bishops - something totally incompatible with Protestantism. The only thing the Protestant can do is to ignore this Council and embrace an inconsistency of accepting the Council as orthodox Christianity but ignoring all the history and details of the Council (including the canons). This is indeed why many Protestants have no problem brushing off Nicaea or any other Council in favor of "Scripture Alone" (i.e. as soon as a "difficulty" arises, any part of any Council can be dispensed with).

But there is yet another detail here that is plain upon even a surface reading, and that is that this is a custom/tradition. Now if Nicaea took place in 325AD, it is no leap of faith to suggest this custom/tradition extended back at least 2-3 generations of Christians (if not further, as Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would suggest), meaning this custom goes back easily 75-100 years (again, if not further, which there's no reason to deny). This means there was an acknowledged bishop of Rome, with this authority, easily dating back to 225AD. Now if the last Apostle (St John) died around 90AD, and any given Protestant is going to suggest the Papacy is an apostate invention, then this means Christianity had to have gone apostate in under 150 years.

While the Eastern Orthodox would not deny the Bishop of Rome Traditionally had high authority (as many historical Christian testimonies prove), even being the "first among equals" (an uninspired and fictitious phrase invented by anti-Papal advocates) when it came to the (three) Patriarchs (i.e. Rome, Alexandria, Antioch), there still leaves the issue of whether this canon suggests Primacy or rather Roman subordination to this Council (and equal authority among Bishops). That the Bishop of Rome is looked to as a "standard" here in this canon is itself good evidence that the Bishop of Rome was not merely "first among equals" with no true superior authority. But that's only granting the anti-Papal interpretation of the canon!

What is the Catholic interpretation of this canon?

To answer that question, Catholics have made the following argument, masterfully stated in this article. Here is the essence of the argument:

• To render Canon 6 along the lines of: "Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule this jurisdiction since the Bishop of Rome is also a Patriarch [with his own separate jurisdiction]" is nonsense; it's the non-sequitur fallacy: it doesn't follow nor fit with the (territorial) claims being made in regards to Alexandria.

• The only reading that makes sense is something along the lines of: "Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule this jurisdiction since it is the tradition of the Pope to grant Alexandria this jurisdiction." This directly connects to the first clause, and the reasoning and force of the argument is that the authority to which it is appealing to (i.e. Rome) is sufficient to settle the matter.

This obviously entails two things: the Council submitting to the traditions of the Pope (Bishop of Rome), and a clear primacy over the other two Patriarchs (and by extension all bishops of the Church). This refutes Eastern Orthodoxy.

*          *          *

Update: 5-12-12

I just found another great piece of evidence to supply to this argument. In the Second Ecumenical Council (i.e. Constantinople 1), about 50 years after Nicaea, here is what was said in Canon 2: 

Diocesan bishops are not to intrude in churches beyond their own boundaries nor are they to confuse the churches: but in accordance with the canons, the bishop of Alexandria is to administer affairs in Egypt only; the bishops of the East are to manage the East alone (whilst safeguarding the privileges granted to the church of the Antiochenes in the Nicene canons); and the bishops of the Asian diocese are to manage only Asian affairs; and those in Pontus only the affairs of Pontus; and those in Thrace only Thracian affairs. Unless invited bishops are not to go outside their diocese to perform an ordination or any other ecclesiastical business. If the letter of the canon about dioceses is kept, it is clear that the provincial synod will manage affairs in each province, as was decreed at Nicaea. But the churches of God among barbarian peoples must be administered in accordance with the custom in force at the time of the fathers.

This Canon is most certainly calling to mind Canon 6 of Nicaea. Yet notice that there is no mention of Rome among the two giants of Alexandria and Antioch. This strongly supports the claim that Rome has no boundaries, and thus Canon 6 was indeed not putting Rome as on par with Alexandria and Antioch. 

And to drive this point even further home, notice what Canon 3 of Constantinople 1 says:

Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.

So here Rome is mentioned, and it clearly is shown to be the head, as even the man-made See of Constantinople (with no ancient customs and no apostolic roots) is said to be in second rank. 

In short, these two Councils did not dare to infringe upon the rights and prerogatives of Rome.

Justification by Faith Alone Debate - Cross Examination Questions by Nick to Jeff

Justification by Faith Alone Debate

Cross Examination Questions to Jeff

asked by Nick

1) What are the top 3 passages which you believe most strongly teach the notion of Christ’s Active Obedience (i.e. that He kept the law in our place and this obedience was counted as if we had done it)?

Justification by Faith Alone Debate - Rebuttal Essay by Nick

Justification by Faith Alone Debate

Rebuttal Essay 

by Nick

(1) This Rebuttal Essay will focus upon interacting with Jeff's Opening Essay. As I noted in the conclusion of my Opening Essay, Sola Fide has a specific meaning, and it's not enough to simply point to a passage that speaks on “salvation by faith” without proving the concepts behind the doctrine.

William Webster's astonishing claims about Sola Scriptura

William Webster is a popular Reformed Apologist who has published many articles online. He is very blunt when it comes to defending Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, which is an approach I admire because one should be confident when doing apologetics for the position they deem to be the correct one. I recently came across one article of his on Sola Scriptura that was too important to not comment upon. Him being one of the more well known Protestant apologists, I was shocked at the foundational claims he made for his position.