Replies

I guess we'll have to disagree.

That would be fine, but again this state of affairs supports my argument if we cannot reach an agreement on what Scripture is saying. We are both looking at the same passages in Scripture. If that is not enough for us to come to some agreement, then this suggests Scripture is not enough for us to arrive at the true interpretation. In my case, I turn to the authority of Sacred Tradition to clarify the meaning of the Scripture, and that is what the Bible itself says to do (I say, in accordance with Sacred Tradition). What is your authority? You cannot appeal to the Holy Spirit, because I claim the same source and yet we cannot agree. So what is your authority, then? How can you demonstrate that your interpretation is not demonic, for example?

Historically in Christianity, the option has been to look to see what the Early Church Fathers had to say. Even Protestants cite the Church Fathers.

Well, if you look at the writings of the Early Church Fathers, you will see references to Apostolic Succession, to the bishops as guardians of the Deposit of Faith, and to the primacy and the authority of Rome. Here are some references to that effect:

On Apostolic Succession, see for instance: Irenaeus' Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3; Tertullian's Prescription Against Heresey, Chapter 23; and Origen's First Principles, Book 1, Preface.

On the role of the bishops as guardians of the Deposit of Faith, see, for instance: Ignatius' Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapters 8-9; Ignatius' Letter to the Philadelphians, Introduction and Chapters 1-4; and Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians, Chapter 7.

On the primacy and authority of Rome, see, for instance: 1 Clement, Chapters 1, 56, 58, 59; Ignatius' Letter to the Romans, introduction and Chapter 3; Irenaeus' Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3, no. 2; Tertullian's Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 22; and Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Chapter 24, no. 9.

The collective weight of these references makes clear the fact that the early Church understood itself as having a hierarchy which was central to maintaining the integrity of the Faith. Nowhere do we see any indication that the early followers of Christ disregarded them invalid as a rule of faith. Quite the contrary, we see in those passages that the Church, from its very inception, saw its power to teach grounded in an inseparable combination of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition--with both being authoritatively taught and interpreted by the teaching Magisterium of the Church, with the Bishop of Rome at its head.

To say that the early Church believed in the notion of "the Bible alone" would be analogous to saying that men and women today could entertain the thought that our civil laws could function without Congress to legislate them, without courts to interpret them and without police to enforce them. All we would need is a sufficient supply of legal volumes in every household so that each citizen could determine for himself how to understand and apply any given law. Such an assertion is absurd, of course, as no one could possibly expect civil laws to function in this manner. The consequence of such a state of affairs would undoubtably be total anarchy.

How much more absurd, then, is it to contend that the bible could function on its own and apart from the Church which wrote it? It is precisely that Church--and not just any Christian--who alone possesses the divinely given authority to interpret it correctly, as well as to legislate matters involving the conduct of its members. Were this not the case, the situation on any level--local, regional or global--would quickly devolve into spiritual anarchy, wherein each and every Christian could formulate a theological system and develop a moral code based simply upon his own private interpretation of Scripture.

Has not history actually seen precisely this result since the 16th century, when the so-called Reformation occurred? In fact, an examination of the state of affairs in Europe immediately following the genesis of the Reformation--particularly in Germany--will demonstrate that the direct result of Reformation teaching was both spiritual and social disorder. See Msgr. Patrick F. O'Hare, LL.D., The Facts About Luther (Cincinnati: Pustet, 1916; Rockford, IL: TAN, 1987), pp. 215-255.

Luther himself bemoaned the fact that, "Unfortunately, it is our daily experience that now under the Gospel [his] the people entertain greater and bitterer hatred and envy and are worse with their avarice and money-grabbing than before under the Papacy." -- Walch, XIII, 2195, as quoted in The Facts About Luther, p. 15. Enough said for now, and yes, I know I am still teasing you with a respond to the issue of Peter. Yes, it is coming.