The Self-Refuting Nature of Sola Scriptura

The concept of Sola Scriptura was a cornerstone of the Protestant Reformation and continues to be a pillar of theology for our separated brethren. Though, as is the nature of Protestantism, there is no single defined doctrine of Sola Scriptura, all interpretations to some degree claim that the Sacred Scriptures are the sole rule of faith for the Christian. To some degree, all adherents of Sola Scriptura reject Sacred Tradition, and all reject any kind of infallible teaching authority, which the Catholic Church calls “Magisterium”. With regards to Scripture, there are some serious problems with Sola Scriptura, not only in what it explicitly affirms, but also in what it implicitly rejects. In short, for Sola Scriptura to be true, not only must we be able to find affirmation of the authority of Scripture, but we must also find a clear rejection of Tradition and magisterial authority. If any of these elements are missing, then we have no choice but to completely reject Sola Scriptura.

Now before i continue: I love the Scriptures. I really, really do. The Holy Bible is God speaking to men through human authors. Let that soak in for a minute. The Bible is a really amazing thing, and Catholics hold the Written Word of God in a very high regard. My intent here is not to minimize the Scripture, but to understand how it fits into the whole of Divine Revelation.

I think it is best to look at some passages of Scripture which are used to defend Sola Scriptura, and in doing so, propose some alternate interpretations for those passages. This is not an attempt at a full exegesis, but merely proposing alternative possibilities for interpretation. The first selection I want to look at is in the fourth chapter of Hebrews:

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do. (Hebrews 4:12-13)

Here the term “word of God” is taken to mean the Bible. Given that the Bible is the written word of God, that seems reasonable. In fact we can grow in discernment by immersing ourselves in the Bible, so this looks like a good interpretation–except for one thing. It is something that would go unnoticed if we only looked at verse twelve, without continuing to verse thirteen. There is a peculiarity with pronouns. This passage is clearly in its entirety about the “word of God”, which is assigned the pronoun “him”. Him? The Scriptures are a “him”? Shouldn’t that say “it”? That small three letter word actually assigns the the “word of God” to be a person, and that person would be “the Word made flesh” (see John 1:4). Also if you consider that vv. 14-16 jump to talking about Jesus as High Priest, it becomes clear that the passage is primarily about the God-man Jesus Christ, rather than the written word of God. This interpretation is also consistent with other passages of Scripture in that the phrase “word of God” usually is referring to a message given to a prophet, or a titular reference to Christ.

This passage is not the only one that seems to support Sola Scriptura. Another particularly strong passage is 2 Timothy 3:14-16:

But as for you, continue what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing form whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. 

Usually, the last verse of the passage is the only one quoted (All scripture…). When you look at the immediate context, it would seem that St. Paul is instructing  St. Timothy specifically about what we call the Old Testament. After all, this epistle was written in the early 60’s, at a time when the other epistles were being written, and well before the Gospel of John. St. Paul really can’t assume his protege was “well-acquainted” with works that had not yet been written. More importantly, there is nothing in this passage that implies exclusivity. I am not denying that Scripture is useful for these things, but I do not believe that Scripture is the only thing that can be used for such purposes.

We are seeing that the explicit declaration that Scripture and only Scripture is to be used for doctrine and theology.This can be rectified if a condemnation of teaching authority of the Church and sacred tradition. A declaration of exclusivity would be redundant if the other things that Catholics look to would be condemned. Let us start with the teaching authority, or Magisterium, of the Church.  In Scripture, what kind of authority does the Church have?  In Matthew, we see that the Church has the authority to “bind and loose”.  For moderns that is kind of a strange phrase. It is only used twice in Scripture, both in the Gospel of Matthew:

And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and  whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (16:18-19)

and

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (18:15-18)

What is important here is that it is the Church who has the final say on discipline.  This second passage essentially provides the outline for excommunication, which has been expanded and developed over the last 2000 years. The binding and loosing, in the mind of the ancient near-east culture form which these texts arise, is simply put the authority to declare what is right and wrong. There is further evidence of this authority in the Pauline Epistles, specifically 1 Timothy:

I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed you may know how one is to be have in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth. (1 Timothy 3:14-15)

This passage quite explicitly explains the great authority–and grave responsibility–of the Church. The Church upholds (the pillar) and defends (the bulwark) the truth. Hence it is the Church which is the final arbiter of truth, and we are not constrained to the translation of a translation of an ancient document. Previous points have shown how the same passage can have multiple interpretations.  This is why we must see the Magisterium not as a limitation, but as a security that we do not fall into heresy.

Lastly, let us look at Tradition. Rather than refute a held interpretation, that I find to be erroneous, instead we will draw our attention to a passage that presents Tradition in a positive light.  That is, though in some cases some traditions may be condemned, there is not a blanket condemnation on all tradition:

But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren and beloved by the Lord. because God chose you from the beginning to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thessalonians 2: 13-15)

There are other passages that praise keeping tradition, but for our purposes, one will suffice. St. Paul here is actually commanding the Thessalonians hold fast to oral tradition. That is, in fact, the opposite of condemning tradition. This does mean that tradition is also a source form which we can draw faith and practice.

In conclusion, Sola Scriptura does not have anything in Scripture to support it. There is no claim of exclusivity. The ruling authority is found in the Church. Tradition is upheld as a good in its proper context. All of these arguments come directly from Scripture, so outside of any Church document, any canon from an Ecumenical Council, any papal decree, the Sacred Scriptures are to be taken together with Sacred Tradition under the guidance of the teaching authority of the Church. All of these together comprise Divine Revelation, and only by taking them all together can we even begin to approach the Truth that God has prepared for us. God bless you always.

Rejoicing in Heaven

I like conversion stories. I like watching The Journey Home on EWTN. One of the first Catholic talks I ever listened to on CD was Scott Hahn’s Why a Protestant Pastor Became Catholic. During my conversion, I read both Rome Sweet Home and Surprised by Truth. I really love conversion stories. However this also carries with it a downside. Sometimes, when i reflect on my own conversion story, i think is isn’t very compelling. I never faced persecution. I never had a spouse that considered a divorce over my decision. I didn’t have to give up my livelihood. I am from a part of the United States where Catholics are pretty common, if not in the majority. My entry into the Catholic Church was pretty smooth. That is a blessing. From the other stories I have read, I had a very easy time of converting. But it was no less supernatural, and no less significant in the eyes of God. When I was confirmed there was great rejoicing in Heaven. I was a lost sheep that had come home, just as there is great rejoicing any time any person comes to repentance and comes into full communion with the Church. I guess the point is, that no matter what the circumstances of your own story, tell it. Tell the story. Your story is unique, and is compelling in its own way. Somebody wants to hear it, and somebody will be moved by it. You may never be on The Journey Home, and it never may be published in a book form, but it is a good story, and it will edify someone. Even if it helps one soul make the decision to come home, isn’t it worth it? 

Is democracy everything it is cracked up to be?

This post will probably get me labeled as “unamerican”, but if we can’t express views challenging the established order, then what good is liberty?

This year marks the 225th anniversary of the Unites States Constitution. For its time, it was a remarkable document. It established a government where leaders were elected by the people. Furthermore, at its passage, in included a list of rights to be enjoyed by the people. I will contend that the real basis for American liberty are these amendments, and not the body of the Constitution itself. 

What do I mean? That the ability to elect our national leaders by the general populace is not necessarily a good thing. As long as the rights guaranteed  by the Bill of Rights are maintained, it is not of vital importance that our leaders be directly elected. When it comes down to it, our elected leaders are not necessarily the most most qualified or most suited to rule. Our elected leaders are the most charismatic and the best salesmen. Who ever is best at persuading the public is who gets the job, not the man (or woman) best suited to the job. I still believe among the other problems with our current president, Obama was woefully unprepared to be the Head of State for the world’s only remaining superpower. 

Another problem with the democratic system is the “majority rules” mechanic. This works fine for local issues. If you want to levy a  tax, ask the people. If you want to make improvements to the local infrastructure, ask the people. If you want a union in your factory, ask the workers. But lest be honest, the majority is not always right. Do you trust the guy who works at MacDonald’s who can’t get your order right to weigh the issues enough to choose the president? 

Do I have an alternative? Not really, short of the Untied States joining the British Commonwealth. But I do know that what we have in place in the United States does not seem to be working, not when the government can use unelected officials to issue mandates not voted on by congress to strip away our liberties. I really don’t have a solution yet, but I do see a problem, and it is somethig we should all be concerned about. 

A Matter of Opinion…

In our interactions, both real and virtual, we share our ideas–our opinions. All to often, when a disagreement arises, one side or the other tries to end the discussion with a simple statement: “Well, that’s just your opinion.” There is nothing wrong  in itself with recognizing a difference of opinion, but when it comes down to it, there are different kinds of opinion, which carry different weights. In other words, not all opinions are created equal. 

Now there is the opinion that is a purely emotional response, of which there is no true wrong or right opinion to hold. For example I love mint chocolate chip ice cream. I also hate Chipotle restaurants. I have a friend that is the exact opposite. She does not like mint chocolate chip ice cream, and for some reason she really loves Chipotle. (My apologies to the restaurant chain…it just isn’t my thing.) So which of us is right. We are both right and neither one is right. It is not the kind of thing that is linked to any kind of knowledge of truth. When most people use the word opinion, this is the meaning that they intend. Unfortunately, it is inappropriate to simply discount all differences of opinion as merely emotional responses to the issue at hand. There can be informed opinions, and informed opinions can lead to knowledge, provided they beliefs they represent are justifiable beliefs.

What is meant by informed opinion. We have all seen courtroom dramas where either the prosecution or defense brings in an expert witness to offer testimony. Generally, what the expert testimony consists of is the expert giving their opinion about what certain facts in the case imply. Now if all opinions were equal why is this expert opinion needed?  Another example is when a doctor gives a diagnosis and recommendation for treatment. It is then quite common to get a second opinion. The opinions of experts carry weight and lead to knowledge. Why? It is because they are specialists in their field, and their opinion is informed by their specialized training. 

SO how do these two disparate kinds of opinion factor into your interpersonal communications? Well if you are talking about which is better Star Wars or Star Trek, or why bacon is the best food in the world, it is easily the emotionally form of opinion. But if you are talking to someone more learned in a specific field than you are, then it is would be wise  to consider taking a position of deference until you can learn more.  Recognizing this can also help in identifying proper vs. improper appeals to authority. St. Thomas Aquinas is a recognized authority in theology and philosophy. Thomas Jefferson is not. (on a side note: an appeal to authority should never be the entirety of your argument, but can be used to help bolster your argument, if used correctly.) 

I do hope that I was successful in shedding at least a little bit of light on these two different kinds of opinion, and perhaps we can be more cautious in saying things like “well, thats your opinion,” particularly when the opinions are not of the same weight. God bless. 

For the Music Lover

Quite some time ago a friend of mine posted a video on Facebook. It was believe it or not a pair of Identical twins playing Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believing”…on HARP.

My initial response was like “How can this be? This should not be done!” But I was wrong. It should be done! And I am not alone in thinking this. “Don’t Stop Believing”, at the time pf this post, has more than 200,000 views. You may think “Meh. What is the big deal?” They also covered Led Zeppelin’s iconic “Stairway to Heaven”, approaching 900,000 views.

They have also covered Bon Jovi, Iron Maiden, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Blue Oyster Cult, and Guns n’ Roses, only to name a few.

They have  a Facebook page, maintained by them, as well as a fan operated fan club page.

Now, I have no training in music,and I am not a music reviewer, but I know what I like when I hear it. This is good music. In addition, they are very appreciative of their fans. I had the opportunity to see them perform live at Cleveland’s Ghoulardifest, and besides putting on a good performance, they really enjoyed interacting with fans , both before and after the performance.

Image

You can download their music from iTunes, or if you are more old-school, like I am, you can order their two CDs, Harp Attack and Harp Fantasy online. Clicking on the title will take you straight to the website.  I have both, and they are definitely worthwhile purchases.

Finally, you can hire them to perform at your event!

I hope you will take the time to give them a listen, and I do apologize for this post. It really isn’t the kind of writing that I specialize in, but I just did it to express my love and appreciation for these two very talented musicians!

A Consistent Life Ethic

Today is the March for Life. Less than a week ago, there was a botched execution by lethal injection in Ohio, AS we speak, soldiers are putting their lives on the line in wars. Occasionally the “right to die” shows up on the news. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, life is sacred: 

“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.” CCC 2258.

According to the Fifth Commandment, we are not to kill. That would seem to cover not only abortion and euthanasia, but also the death penalty and war. Are we to be absolute pacifists? Are we forbidden from taking a life under any circumstances? The answer is can not be answered with a simple “yes” or “no”.  

A degree of elucidation in required to fully explain the position of the Church. The key to understanding the distinction is the concept of self-defense. Those things which can be justified, that is, war and the delth penalty, are bound up in the idea that all people have a right to legitimate self-defense (As an aside, this could also be examined to inform the individual conscience on gun rights, but that is a different post altogether). In short, individuals and societies have the right to preserve their own lives. Abortion  is not preserving life. Euthanasia is not preserving life. However both war and the death penalty may be avenues of preserving life. 

There are those absolutely opposed to the death penalty, and though my view on this issue is more restrictive than most, I concede that at times it is necessary. Their argument is basically that all human life is sacred, and it is not our prerogative to end a life. This is true, but only to a point. In most cases, the death penalty is not needed. We must first reflect on why criminals are separated from the general population. Punishment is one reason, but  not the primary reason. More important than punishment is correction. In my state, the department that oversees parole, and prisons and whatnot is the Department of Corrections. Their mission is to not simply punish criminals, but prepare them to rejoin society in a productive capacity. While this rehabilitation is being done, society is to be protected from them. When we shift our view that the penal system is primarily about punishment, and less about penance, then our legal system will fail. The death penalty then, is not acceptable only by virtue of what the perpetrator has done, but may be acceptable if there is no other way to protect society.  

What about war? in light of the fifth commandment, how can war possibly be justified? Truly is is very hard to justify a war, and I have annoyed (if not outright angered) more than one “patriot” by suggesting that most of the wars the United States got herself embroiled in do not pass muster as a just war. There are four criteria that must be met:

  1. All diplomatic avenues must be exhausted, that is, every attempt at resolving the conflict peacefully must have been tried, and all efforts have failed.
  2. The evil that comes about due to the war must be less than if the war was not waged.
  3. The war must be in defense of one’s own nation, or a weaker nation requesting aid.
  4. There must exist a reasonable chance of winning the war. 

A war can be justified only if all four criteria can be met at one and the same time. As a result, I am generally a pacifist. The American Revolution was justified. The War of 1812 failed on points 1 and 3. The Mexican War failed on point 1 and 3. The Civil War failed on point 1. The Spanish American War failed on point 1. World War I and World War II were both justified. Korea and Vietnam failed on point 2. The First Gulf war was just, as was the recent war in Afghanistan, but the more recent Gulf War (or Operation: Iraqi Freedom or whatever you want to call it) failed on the first 3 points. So yeah, most wars are unnecessary. (Note: these are my own personal prudential judgments, we can disagree on any or all of these, and still be faithful Catholics.)

Previously, I said that everyone has the right to defend their own life. That does raise a question form the “pro-choice” camp: does that not, then allow for abortion in the case that the mother would die without one? The short answer is “no”. This answer demands an explanation. What we need to look at is what we mean by “direct abortion”. A direct abortion is a procedure such that no effort whatsoever is made to save the life of the child. That is, the intent and purpose of the procedure is exclusively to kill the unborn child. If a prcedure is done that removes a diseased or improperly functioning organ, yet every effort is made to ensure the life of the child, even if chances of survival are very small, this is not a direct abortion. Yes, some may say I am splitting hairs, but it is also the best way I know of to explain the distinction. (If anyone has a better explanation, i welcome your comments). 

Lastly I am going to address euthanasia. Extraordinary treatment can be refused, provided the intent is not to directly cause death. Feeding tubes cannot be removed. The patient cannot be denied water. Medical care can be discontinued if it is understood that death is inevitable, but not willed. 

There you have it a brief (very brief) rundown of the Church’s teachings on some major life issues. The key is protecting as lives of as many people as possible, and protecting the lives of the innocent in particular. This has been my first blog in a while, so I know the writing leaves a bit to be desired. I will be writing agian soon, so until then God bless you and yours!

P.S. Nest time, I promise it will be on something a little bit lighter and more fun!

Papal Inafallibility and Power

The First Vatican Council established the dogma of Papal Infallibility, which, ever since, has been a sticking point with many people, believers and non-believes alike.  Some people see this as being a power-grab by Rome, and a declaration that the Pope is above reproach and without error. This is simply not true.  Papal infallibility does not say that the Holy Father is without sin. It doesn’t mean that every statement he makes is absolutely without error. If that were the case, I would be asking who he likes to win the Superbowl and place a wager.

To see what Papal Infallibility really says, let us look at the actual definition from Vatican I:

[W]e teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So the charsim of infallibility really only comes into play in very limited circumstances. First, he has to be acting in his office as the pastor of the universal Church. It doesn’t apply in press conferences, or interviews, or when writing personal theological reflections, but when he is acting as a pastor. In addition, it is limited to faith and morals–not issues of practices of piety. For example if Pope Francis encouraged everyone to pray a daily Rosary, this would not pass the muster of infallibility, because this is a practice of individual piety. Likewise, if he decided if priestly vestments would now be tuxedos with top hats, this would not be an issue of faith or morals. So the actual scope of papal infallibility is quite narrow.

More importantly, Papal infallibility is not an exercise of great power but actually a limitation of power. It says as much about what the pope cannot do as much as it says about what he can do. The pope cannot change doctrine. He cannot reverse established dogmas. A pope could never say that the Eucharist is symbolic, eliminating the doctrine of Transubstantiation. He could not say that the Blessed Virgin Mary had other biological children after Jesus.   The Holy Spirit protects the Church from this.  All the doctrine of Papal infallibility really does is say that all teachings of the Church is true, and no human, even the Vicar of Christ, cannot use his authority to teach something that is not true.

Do Guns Save Lives or Take Them?

It is a question that bears asking. The answer you will get is wholly dependent on the perspective of the person you are asking. From the perspective of the National Rifle Association, they would say that guns save lives and claiming that a gun never killed anyone. From the political left, you will find the exact opposite response. Guns take lives, and a gun alone never saved anyone. 

I posit that both of these views are correct and both are incorrect. To explain, we must first think about what a firearm actually is. First and foremost, a firearm is a tool. Granted it is a tool originally designed for warfare, and thus to kill, but it is a tool nonetheless. As a tool, it is morally neutral in itself, and is actually inert, posing no threat to anyone, whether for good purpose or ill.  For a gun, or any other tool, to have an effect it must first be wielded and put to an end. You can use a silver hammer in the practice of medicine, or if your name is Maxwell, it can be used to bash someone’s skull in. Whether it is used for either purpose depends on the intent and will of the user. The same is true of guns. So do guns kill? No, but a person can use a gun to that end. Do guns save lives? No, but it can be put to that purpose by a responsible gun owner. 

That being said, we see a problem with gun violence in the United States. No amount of gun legislation will bring and end to this problem, because gun legislation does nothing to address the cause of the problem, but rather, focuses on the means. To reduce gun violence, we need to do a few things:

  • Enforce the existing gun legislation: There are plenty of laws to keep guns out of the worng hands, so lets prosecute violators.
  • Educate: Gun deaths from accidental shootings will be reduced by properly educating gun owners on safe handling and storage of firearms
  • Reform: I see the value of an armed populace, so lets see to it that anyone who is no danger to himself, his family or society at large can own a weapon if they desire. The firearms ban for convicted felons that have shown themselves to have reformed is a bit heavy handed. If he can own a crossbow, why not a gun. Both are lethal.

Agian, it is not the gun that is the problem, but the person. Rather than addressing the means, we need to get to the source of the problem, which is the person behind the weapon.

Black Friday is Coming–And It Starts on Thursday…

Those people who know me personally know that I am annoyed by the commercialization of holidays, none more so than the commercialization of Christmas and Easter.  Christmas has become so commercial that the day after Thanksgiving–the so-called “Black Friday”–has become a holiday unto itself as the first day of the “Christmas Season”. (As an aside, the Christmas Season starts on Christmas and runs through Epiphany–the “Twelve Days of Christmas”). However, retailers are not content to confine their greed to Black Friday and feel the need to encroach on Thanksgiving, with several stores (Target, Sears, Wal-Mart, and others) are opening their doors late on Thanksgiving to extend the shopping season a few more hours. What I find particularly distasteful is the fact that Thanksgiving is the earliest that it can be this year (November 22nd). And honestly, what is a few extra hours going to do? Will they make so much more money in the eight or so extra hours that they must encroach on one of America’s biggest holidays?  To send a clear message to retailers, don’t write letters, don’t call, don’t send e-mails. Stay home. Buy gifts from local merchants. Make gifts. Only patronize businesses who remain closed on Thanksgiving.  After all, you get to enjoy the full holiday with your family. I am sure executives are not in their offices on Thanksgiving. Aren’t these retail workers entitled to the same opportunity?