Infallible Magisterium or Magician’s Sleight of Hand?

Is Roman Catholicism Christian? part 4

[Earlier posts in the series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3]

[Note: This post is really long… it was much longer, but I’ve edited it into two, and will post the second very soon. ~Squirrel]

The Church of Rome has claimed that it is the only infallible source of interpretation of the Scriptures. This belief makes the church the only definer of what is true. If the church decides what is true; then there is no accountability, they can say whatever they want, and no one has the right, or the ability, to question them. Once again, let’s let Rome define itself:

[889] In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."

[890] The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. the exercise of this charism takes several forms:

[891] "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

[892] Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

(Paragraph 892 just kills me. The pope is infallible… except when he’s not. How’s that for “cover your butt” vagary?)

Yet, nowhere in Scripture is this “infallible Magisterium” granted. Rome bases this belief on their tradition of “apostolic succession:” the idea that Jesus made Peter the head of the Apostles, and that that office has been passed down in an unbroken line from Peter to the current Bishop of Rome. While there is much debate over this “unbroken line” among historians, if Jesus did not, in fact, put Peter in charge, the succession is moot. So, did Jesus leave Peter in charge?

The one & only Scripture that Rome points to in order to substantiate this claim is Matthew 16:18 : "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” Rome says that Peter is the rock upon which the Lord built His church. This claim does not work, when Matthew 16:18 is put into its context.

Let’s read the full passage:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ. (Matthew 16:13-20)

It is plain to see, in context, that the “rock” on which Jesus would build His church was Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Christ, the promised Messiah. And, while no one who is committed to the inerrancy of Scripture believes that the Apostles were infallible in what they taught, there is absolutely no reason to believe that their infallibility was passed on to anyone else.

A cursory reading of the Early Church Fathers doesn’t seem to support an infallible Magisterium either. Where did Athanasius look to support his arguments against the Arians? Without a doubt, to Scripture, and Scripture alone. It has been said that, if all ancient New Testament manuscripts were lost, we could reconstruct all but a few verses from citations made by the Early Church Fathers. That is how much they quoted from, and argued from, the Scriptures.

It has come up several times in the discussion thread that, since Protestants don’t agree on every little detail of doctrine, then sola Scriptura is a failure. I must disagree most strongly. A key principle of Bible interpretation is the perspicuity of the Scriptures: the belief that they Scriptures are clear in what they teach. That the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things. None of us, in our short lives on this earth, will ever come to understand everything in the Bible fully, nor are any of us going to get everything absolutely right, but the key things are so simple that a child can understand them. Jesus said, “(W)hoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it…” (Luke 18:17) We do not need to understand absolutely everything; we do not need to understand everything perfectly; but we can all understand enough that we understand what we need to understand.

What do we need to understand? We need to understand that we have all sinned against God (Romans 3:23). We need to understand that, because of our sin against God, we all deserve to die, and spend eternity apart from God, but that God, through Jesus Christ, has made it possible to be forgiven and to have eternal life with God in heaven (Romans 6:23). We need to understand that this forgiveness is available because Jesus died for us on the cross, taking our punishment, and giving us His righteousness in exchange (Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21). We need to understand that this salvation is available only through Jesus Christ (John 14:6; Acts 4:10-12). And we need to understand that this salvation is available only by God’s grace through faith, and that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that we can do to earn it (Ephesians 2:8-9). All of these things can be easily understood from Scripture alone.

What of Rome’s infallible Magisterium? It’s like a shell game. Rome promises you this great certainty, that the church is infallible, but when you pick up the shell, there’s no pea under it. They never have to prove anything; they never have to support anything. You just have to take Rome’s word for it, and that’s it.

Well, God did not operate that way in the Old Testament, but, through signs and wonders, He verified His messengers. Moses’ words were attested to by signs that signified that he spoke for God. And Moses’ words were enscripted for future generations to read and be enlightened through.

When God established the Prophets in Israel, He did so through the signs and wonders associated with the ministries of Elijah and Elisha. After the Babylonian Captivity, the Old Testament canon was closed, and there were no prophets in Israel (1 Maccabees 4:46 &9:27) until the coming of John the Baptist (Luke 1:76). During the 400 or so “silent years” when there were no prophets in Israel, God did not establish any “Magisterium” to infallible interpret the Scriptures. (The Pharisees abrogated for themselves this position, but we’ve already seen what Jesus had to say about their traditions, and how those traditions related to what was written in the Scriptures {Mark 7:1-9})

In His story about Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:20-31), Jesus said, “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them,” and, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.” (Luke 16:29,31) Jesus was saying that all anybody needed to do was read and believe Moses and the Prophets (by implication, the Old Testament) in order to be saved. Jesus didn’t point to infallible “teachings” or “traditions”, He pointed to infallible Scripture.

The Scriptures are sufficient “to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3:15) We do not need, nor do we have any reason to believe in, any “infallible Magisterium.”



[I would like to thank L. D. for his research, some of which was incorporated in this article. ~Squirrel]

Is Roman Catholicism Christian? Part 3

[Part 1 -- Part 2]

Scripture vs. Tradition

We’re spending so much time on sola Scriptura, because it is from Rome’s rejection of this that their other errors spring. When last we visited this subject, we saw that Rome does, indeed, deny the doctrine of sola Scriptura. This was not hard to do, since Rome makes no bones about denying sola Scriptura. In fact, Rome considers sola Scriptura to be a false doctrine, and the chief source of doctrinal confusion, not only between Roman Catholics and Protestants, but within the Protestant camp as well.

So, just what is sola Scriptura?

To hear many Roman Catholics talk, sola Scriptura is a person sitting alone on an island somewhere with a Bible, but with no access to Godly pastors, teachers, history books, lexicographies and grammars, archaeology, or anything else that would help put the words of the Scripture into context. That is not the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura! (I will say this, though. If you did have someone alone on an island, with nothing but a Bible, they would never, ever, from the Bible, not in a million years, come up with what we know as Roman Catholicism!)

Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the 66 canonical books of the Bible are the only infallible authority for all matters of faith (what a Christian believes) and practice (how a Christian worships God.) Our understanding of Scripture is informed by Godly men who spend their lives studying the Bible, by history, by archaeology, by language study, and a whole host of other disciplines, but it is the Scripture which has the final word. Nor is sola Scriptura a wholesale rejection of all tradition, but sola Scriptura does say that all teachings and traditions must be measured against Scripture, and anything which contradicts Scripture must be rejected.

Does the Bible teach sola Scriptura?

The short answer is yes, and I will support that by looking briefly at three passages.

The first is 2 Timothy 3:14-17:

You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Here Paul points Timothy to the written Word of God, called “the sacred writings” in verse 15, and Scripture in verse 16. It is the written Word, breathed out by God, which is sufficient for teaching what is true, for identifying what is false, for the restoration to truth from error, and for the teaching of what should be taught. The Scriptures are enough to supply the doctrines of the Christian faith, no extra-Biblical traditions are needed.

The second is Acts 17:10-11:

The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Regarding this passage, John MacArthur writes, “It is highly significant that the Bereans are explicitly commended for examining the apostolic message in light of Scripture. They had the priority right: Scripture is the supreme rule of faith, by which everything else is to be tested.” If even an actually apostle’s teachings were to be checked against Scripture, should not the Pope and the Cardinals be held to the same standard?

The last passage I would like to look at today is Mark 7:1-9:

The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) The Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?" And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.' "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

Here, Jesus deals with the Pharisees’ adherence to tradition in direct contradiction to the written words of Scripture. I believe that this speaks clearly to the exact same situation in the Roman Catholic Church.

When we return to this subject, I would like to look at some of the consequences of Rome’s rejection of sola Scriptura.

Dr. Oakley on Sola Scriptura

As I continue to work at writing my next post on the subject, I wanted to point you towards Dr. James White's closing statement from his 1999 debate with Fr. Mitchell Pacwa in San Diego, CA, on the topic of sola scriptura.

Is Roman Catholicism Christian? Part 2

Rome and Sola Scriptura

Sola Scriptura -- The teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God; that scripture alone is the final authority in matters of faith (the content of our belief: i.e. what we believe) and practice (the outworking of our belief: i.e. how we live.)

I’ve got to admit that I’ve been having a little trouble writing this post. Not because it is difficult to show that the Roman Catholic Church denies sola Scriptura, but because it’s too easy. It’s like beating a baby seal; you just feel bad doing it.

Rome’s position is crystal clear. Rome doesn’t deny denying sola Scriptura. In fact, they deny that sola Scriptura is a proper doctrine. Sola Scriptura, Rome says, is not taught in the Bible, and was not taught by the Apostles. So, just what is Rome’s stance on the scriptures?

Rome teaches that, in addition to the scriptures, the Apostles also gave to the bishops “their own position of teaching authority.” Here is the pertinent section from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

[76] In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways: - orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit"; - in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".

[77] "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority." Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."

[78] 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." "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."

Did you catch that in paragraph 78? All of the church’s doctrine and beliefs result from tradition, not scripture. That’s why, while Protestants say, “the Bible says,” Catholics say, “the Church teaches.” Lip service is given to the Bible, of course, but the Church is the only infallible interpreter of what the Bible really means. That means that what the Church says has more actual authority then what is written in the Bible. Remember, Rome used to burn people alive for the crime of translating the Bible so that people would be able to read it for themselves.

Rome doesn’t teach sola Scriptura. Instead, what Rome teaches is sola Ecclesia: that the Church in the Magesterium (the teaching office of the Pope together with the Bishops) contains all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God.

So, is Rome right? Does the Bible teach sola Scriptura? Or did God establish an infallible Magesterium to propagate proper belief? If so, why write a book at all?

The first Psalm tells us that it is the “Law of Yahweh,” not the teachings of the Magesterium on which the blessed man meditates “day and night.” Paul told Timothy that it is the inspired Scriptures, not tradition, that is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

Now, I can’t tell you how many words from Rome I’ve read over the last few days that explain how sola Scriptura is a “false doctrine.” (See this or this, for example.) Many, many words to explain away the clear teaching of God-breathed Scripture.

Here’s how I see the problem with Rome’s “infallible Magesterium.” It isn’t taught anywhere in scripture. Instead, scripture warns repeatedly to be on guard against false teachers. In fact, Paul warns us of false teachers arising from within the leadership of the church herself! So, if the Bible does not teach an infallible Magesterium, but actually teaches that church leadership itself can (and will) contain false teachers, should we not be concerned by those who do teach sola Ecclesia?

Rome denies sola Scriptura at great cost and peril.

Is Roman Catholicism Christian? Part 1: An Introduction

(Update: Yeah, I know I said part 2 would be Tuesday. Sidetracked, sorry.)

So, somebody disagrees with me. So what?

All of us, in our human pride, don’t like it very much when somebody says that we’re wrong about something. You don’t like it, and I don’t like it. But I learned a long time ago the folly of running around defending everything that I say. It is, as they say, like trying to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.

At the same time, I try to be careful about what I say. I like to do my homework. I endeavor not to label opinion as fact, nor fact as opinion. I want to state, as clearly as I can, what I believe, and why I believe it.

If I do that to the best of my ability, then I’m usually content to let people disagree all they want. I know that no amount of argumentation will change somebody’s mind, if they are unwilling to be convinced otherwise.

But, sometimes, I just can’t let it go. I have no desire to participate in a full-out blog war, but, at the same time, I recognise that one of the primary duties of eldership is to refute error.

Last week, I was taking part in a discussion on Roman Catholicism over at Everyday Mommy’s blog. [Oops, new blog: SolaMom] Here is my remark in its entirety: [The whole thread can be found here]

I think I see where we are talking past each other, and it comes down to this. Is Roman Catholicism a false church that teaches a different Jesus and a different Gospel and a different salvation, or is it just another Christian denomination?

If Roman Catholicism is just another denomination, then I don’t see any problem with iMonk, or anybody else linking to Roman Catholic resources. On my blog, I link to Christian sites that have different takes on baptism, ecclesiology, and eschatology; and yet they are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

But, if Roman Catholicism is a false church, teaching false doctrine, then I do see a problem with a Christian site linking to non-Christian resources. I would not link to Mormon, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Buddhist sites, except as examples of error. I certainly would not promote them in any way.

So, in which category do I see the Roman Catholic Church?

As long as the Catholic Church denies sola scriptura, sola Christus, and sola fide, then they are not Christian. So, yeah, I guess I’ve got a problem with iMonk linking to Catholic resources.

If that seems overly blunt or harsh to you, I’m sorry. I love Catholics, and I would love to see them come out from under the authority of Rome, and submit to the authority of scripture. The church cannot save you, the Pope cannot save you, Ritual cannot save you, neither the saints nor Mary can save you. Only Jesus Christ can save you, and He does that by Grace through Faith. My prayers are not for Rome, they are for you, the good and faithful Catholic. May God, in His Grace and Mercy, open your eyes.

My comment was quoted by iMonk, at his blog, with the following remarks: [Whole thread is here]

It’s particularly ironic to me that the doctrine police play the sloppiest with the other guys doctrine. I’ve learned this by having my own arrogant know-it-all attitude toward Roman Catholicism corrected dozens and dozens of times (to the point of another kind of irony, but that’s another thread :-))

If you read a typical neo-Reformed, anti-Catholic tirade, you will hear item after item that is patently false.

Note the following from someone named after a small animal in the comment thread yesterday. (I know…I know…let it pass…)

"If Roman Catholicism is just another denomination, then I don’t see any problem with iMonk, or anybody else linking to Roman Catholic resources. On my blog, I link to Christian sites that have different takes on baptism, ecclesiology, and eschatology; and yet they are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

"But, if Roman Catholicism is a false church, teaching false doctrine, then I do see a problem with a Christian site linking to non-Christian resources. I would not link to Mormon, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Buddhist sites, except as examples of error. I certainly would not promote them in any way.

"So, in which category do I see the Roman Catholic Church?

"As long as the Catholic Church denies sola scriptura, sola Christus, and sola fide, then they are not Christian. So, yeah, I guess I’ve got a problem with iMonk linking to Catholic resources

"If that seems overly blunt or harsh to you, I’m sorry. I love Catholics, and I would love to see them come out from under the authority of Rome, and submit to the authority of scripture. The church cannot save you, the Pope cannot save you, Ritual cannot save you, neither the saints nor Mary can save you. Only Jesus Christ can save you, and He does that by Grace through Faith."

Now how many outright untruths, non-truths and complete distortions are here? Is this the result of reading the CCC? Or asking RCs if this is what they, in fact, teach?

No, it’s the sloppy, toss off, anti-Catholic version of Catholic belief you can get from 50 anti-Catholic websites. It’s not careful. It’s not fair. It’s not accurate. 95% of the neo-Reformed themselves would take issue with some of it.

But what if Catholics tried this with Grace Evangelical Church? What if this level of slapdash misrepresentation is applied to Calvinism? Clear the roads and get the kids out of the streets. There’s a three alarm fire somewhere.

Fair is fair on both sides. Assuming you are right in your conclusions doesn’t mean you get to cheat in the process. Not wanting to do the hard work to know what’s actually believed is no excuse.

Big time irony.

Many of you will have quickly spotted the “he just doesn’t understand/he's misrepresenting” defense.

So, I wondered, just what did I say that was “patently false?” Just what “untruths, non-truths and complete distortions” did I make? I’ll admit, I’ve never been a Roman Catholic, and it’s been a long time since I’ve read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and even longer since I’ve attended Roman Catholic services, but I’ve done both. And, while I’m no expert, I’m not exactly ignorant of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

So, does the Roman Catholic Church in fact deny sola scriptura, sola fide, and sola Christus?

I believe that it is easy to demonstrate that the Catholic Church does, in fact, deny these doctrines. And I intend to do exactly that in a series of posts, of which this is the introduction. Tomorrow, God willing, we’ll look at Roman Catholicism and sola scriptura.