Joseph Richardson who owns The Lonely Pilgrim stopped by last Sunday and asked for some comments on his post, “A Biblical Argument for the Authority of the Papacy”. Judging from this post and a few others I read Joseph is a devout Roman Catholic who is taken with the defense of his denomination. And his title indicates that he believes the Bible gives the Pope his authority.
Joseph begins with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and a discussion about Christ as head of the church and quickly proceeds to the Scriptures by stating,
I think an honest reading of Scripture requires one to acknowledge that Jesus did delegate His authority, first to the Twelve Apostles as a group and then to Peter in particular.
Thereafter Joseph relies on the usual Scriptural suspects – Matthew 16:16-18, John 20:21-23, etc. – all the while offering his take on them. And that gives rise to my first comment.
Roman Catholics are not allowed to offer their own interpretations of Scripture.
One of the cardinal points of difference between Rome and Protestants at the time of the Reformation was how one was to interpret the Scriptures. The Protestants held that God worked in both the faithful preaching of the Word and in its faithful reception (i.e. 1 Corinthians 15:1). Rome objected. She felt that this led to “unbridled spirits” interpreting Scriptures in a multitude of possibly conflicting and incorrect ways. So Rome placed this dogma on all faithful Roman Catholics:
Furthermore, in order to check unbridled spirits, it decrees, that no one, relying on his own judgment, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published. Those who act contrary to this shall be made known by the ordinaries and punished in accordance with the penalties prescribed by the law.[i]
So any interpretation of Scripture used by a Roman Catholic must conform to that “sense which holy mother Church…has held and holds” and they must not be contradictory to the “unanimous teaching of the Fathers.”
But it cannot be shown that what Rome holds today she has always held with regard to any of the Scriptures Joseph cited. And, in fact, it can be shown that the Roman Church has varied its interpretation of Matthew 16:18 so widely that it is impossible to tell what she “has held and holds” with regard to that key verse. So where that leaves us is that Joseph is acting like a Protestant in interpreting the Scriptures to support Roman doctrines. I don’t think that was his intent.
Joseph ends his post with a claim that a “literal interpretation” of Scriptures is friendly to Rome:
“Evidently, we Catholics interpret Scripture more literally and realistically than you, and accept it more readily for what it actually says in its plainest sense.” And that leads to my second and final observation:
A Literal Reading of Scripture is not friendly to Rome.
A few weeks ago, I was made aware of a Presbyterian minister who had converted to Rome. Although I did not listen to the entirety of his interview on EWTN, I do recall that one of his motivations was the “literal meaning” of the Bible and in his case the 6th chapter of John and his understanding of that chapter’s relevance to the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. (It seems very odd to me that someone would use the most allegorical of the Gospels as the basis for a literal interpretation but that is another matter.) My point is that Catholics take a “pick-and-choose” approach to their literal interpretations.
Consider Matthew 16. Verse 18 is the seminal verse most commonly used in support of Rome’s authority. But verse 23 – just 5 short verses later – has Christ Himself calling Peter “Satan”. Is Rome prepared to interpret that verse literally?
And following on to Matthew 16, the Old Testament has dozens of passages that refer to the “Rock” and it is always God, not a man. One example is 2 Samuel 22:32, “For who is God besides the Lord? And who is the Rock except our God?” And given that Jesus affirms everything in the Old Testament in this same Gospel (see Matthew 5:17-21) it is highly problematic that a “literal” reading of Scripture means Peter is the Rock of 16:18.
And just a few chapters later, as Christ is preparing His disciples for their mission after His departure He specifically states, “Let no man call you Father.” (Matthew 23:9). And yet, Rome has more than 400,000 “Fathers” who claim to follow Christ. And still more to the point, the Scriptures are very clear that no one is “holy” (Romans 3:10, Psalm 14:1-3, 53:1-3; Ecclesiastes 7:20). And yet Rome calls the pope, “Holy Father.”
So a literal interpretation of the Scriptures is not friendly to Rome’s doctrines.
I am very grateful for the chance to interact with Joseph’s material and thank him for the invitation. I am even more grateful for his interest in the Scriptures, for “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” (Romans 10:17).
Soli Deo Gloria.
[i] Fourth Session of the Council of Trent, Decree Concerning the Edition and Use of the Sacred Books, April 8, 1546. See Schroeder, H.J., O.P. Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent; English Translation. Charlotte, N.C. Tan Books, 1978. p. 19. Nihil Obstat (1978 edition): Fr. Humbertus Kane, O.P. Fr. Alexius Driscoll, O.P. Imprimi Potest (1978 edition): Fr. Petrus O’Brien, O.P. Prior Provincialis. Nihil Obstat (1941): A. A. Esswein, Censor Deputatus. Imprimatur (1941): Archbishop John J. Glennon.
anactofmind 
Hi. And thanks. 🙂 I do appreciate it.
First: What makes you say, “Roman Catholics are not allowed to offer their own interpretations of Scripture”? Is being Catholic somehow a handicap to my powers of reasoning? What makes Protestants able to offer their own interpretations of Scripture, and Catholics unable? Because this is in fact my own interpretation, based in a careful study of the Greek, of the whole of Scripture, not just the passage you are drawing attention to, and of the teachings of the Fathers.
I think you may be misunderstanding the teachings of the Church. Catholics are perfectly able, in fact, encouraged, to study Scripture linguistically, textually, and exegetically. As the quote you give indicates, the Church is the ultimate judge and arbiter of scriptural interpretation — but that is in in way a limitation or prohibition on her children from pursuing study and interpretation of the Scriptures. I’ve invested a thousand or so dollars in scriptural commentaries in just the year I’ve been Catholic. The Magisterium of the Church is a teacher (magister), not a dictator. She offers us guidance and instruction and wisdom — the accumulated knowledge of all the Fathers, Councils, and Popes — and she holds the truth not becausw she declares it so, but because that is what she was given — in the body of Truth that is divine revelation, and in the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised would guide us into all truth.
Anyway, you will have to show me how the Church has “varied her interpretation” of this passage. Since individual Church Fathers are only human and not inspired or infallible, there of course isn’t unanimity — but the primacy of the Roman Church has been upheld since the early second century, and the primacy of Peter, based specifically on this verse, has been held forth since th third and fourth by the likes of Cyprian, Augustine, and Jerome, just to name a few of many. You might check out the recent string of posts by Prayson Daniel, who has been scouring the Church Fathers for arguments against the traditional Roman interpretation of Matt 16:18, for anything that even resembles dissent, and in my opinion, not being very successful. I would like to see some other “variation” if you know of it.
My comment about Catholics and “literal” interpretation was in part a tongue-wag at the person I was replying to, I admit. But there are certainly many, many cases, including this one, in which the plain sense of Scripture supports the traditional Catholic understanding, and was never seriously questioned until the time of the Reformation; and in which Protestants go to great circumlocutions of logic to offer alternative interpretations. You speak specifically of John 6. I have a bit about that one before. Though it’s true that John often offers spiritual and allegorical interpretations, in that particular case, Jesus Himself rather insists on a literal interpretation, restating it even more explicitly when his listeners expressed disbelief and disgust, at the expense of losing “many followers,” rather than correcting them if they had in fact misunderstood Him.
As I said in my initial comment to you, my argument here was only marginally built upon the “standard” Matthew 16:18, but you’ve conveniently ignored the whole rest of my argument, which I found much more compelling than that one by itself. It’s explicitly clear in numerous passages that Jesus invested His Apostles with His own authority. The debate about whether or not Peter is the “rock” (it’s quite clear that he is, as many knowledgable Protestant scholars of Greek admit: Jesus’s wordplay on Peter’s name is explicit) becomes nearly irrelevant when the rest of Jesus’s proclamation to Peter, about binding and loosing and the keys and the gates of the kingdom, is considered — even more so when it’s illuminated by Old Testament prophecy.
It’s very clear that Peter was an imperfect servant — but the very fact that he could be “satan,” a thrice-denier, have “so little faith,” and still be the most intimate and prominent of all the Apostles, and the “rock” on which Jesus would build the Church, echoes the whole heart of the Gospel, about forgiveness and restoration and using the lowly (a fisherman!) for God’s purposes.
You yourself admit that Jesus isn’t always meant to be taken literally, and reject the Catholic reading of John 6 on that very point — and then you turn and read Matthew 23 with gross literalness, when it’s clear in this and many other places in Matthew that Jesus makes use of hyperbole as a rhetorical device. If we are to take Jesus completely literally, most of us men would have gouged out both our eyes (Matthew 5:29)! We should also hate our father and mother (Luke 14:26)! And in Matthew 23, if we are to take everything Jesus says with complete literalness, we would suppose that (1) we should never be called “instructor” or “teacher,” (2) we should never call anyone “father” on earth (not even our biological fathers), (3) we should never sit at the places of honor at feasts or the best seats in the synagogue. In this context, Jesus is speaking out in the height of hyperbole against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and scribes, who claim such titles as “rabbi” or “father”, and yet are “whitewashed tombs,” spiritually dead and empty. It is clear from the rest of Scripture that the likes of Paul and Timothy had no problem with calling one’s spiritual mentor “father” and one’s student “son.” It seems Protestants have no problem accepting Jesus’s hyperbole as less than literal in many other cases, but when it makes a convenient weapon, it’s absolutely literal.
Regarding calling the pope or the saints or anyone else “holy”: that word does have different senses. No one means to suppose that the pope as “Holy Father” is in any way holy in the same sense as God, or that anyone who leads a “holy” life is in any way divine.
Thanks for your kind words. If it sounds that I’m getting heated, it’s because I am passionate about this. Though there have been many good fruits of Protestantism, I think there is much more misunderstanding between Protestants and Catholics than there is any cause for be in opposition to one another in this day and age. The wounds of the Reformation were bitter to both sides, but we all follow the same Christ and believe in the same Gospel and are charged to share the same Love.
Hi Joseph,
Thanks for your thoughts. I’ve responded to each in the hope of being clear.
You wrote:
First: What makes you say, “Roman Catholics are not allowed to offer their own interpretations of Scripture”? Is being Catholic somehow a handicap to my powers of reasoning? What makes Protestants able to offer their own interpretations of Scripture, and Catholics unable? Because this is in fact my own interpretation, based in a careful study of the Greek, of the whole of Scripture, not just the passage you are drawing attention to, and of the teachings of the Fathers.
My Reply:
You’re arguing like a Protestant, Joseph. I explained that Roman Catholics are bound by the Council of Trent and by the Creed of Pope St. Pius IV as to how they are to interpret Scripture. So your argument is not with me but with Rome.
You wrote:
I think you may be misunderstanding the teachings of the Church. Catholics are perfectly able, in fact, encouraged, to study Scripture linguistically, textually, and exegetically. As the quote you give indicates, the Church is the ultimate judge and arbiter of scriptural interpretation — but that is in in way a limitation or prohibition on her children from pursuing study and interpretation of the Scriptures. I’ve invested a thousand or so dollars in scriptural commentaries in just the year I’ve been Catholic. The Magisterium of the Church is a teacher (magister), not a dictator. She offers us guidance and instruction and wisdom — the accumulated knowledge of all the Fathers, Councils, and Popes — and she holds the truth not becausw she declares it so, but because that is what she was given — in the body of Truth that is divine revelation, and in the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised would guide us into all truth.
My Reply:
Congratulations on your studies, Joseph. I suggest that you read some pre-Vatican II material before forming your opinions. As I have written here, the Roman Church has absolutely been a dictator. You can read for yourself, but during the time of the Reformation the closer a Catholic got to Rome, the farther he got from Scriptures – because the Pope outlawed them. That is as dictatorial as it gets.
Closer to our time I might suggest that you read Pope Leo’s encyclical “Providentissimus Deus”.
You wrote:
Anyway, you will have to show me how the Church has “varied her interpretation” of this passage.
My Reply:
Just to be sure that you don’t this discussion is polemical, let me quote a Catholic Archbishop and seminary professor:
“Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis, in his speech prepared for, but not delivered in, the Vatican Council, and published at Naples in 1870, declares that Roman Catholics cannot establish the Petrine privilege from Scripture, because of the clause in the Creed of Pius IV, binding them to interpret Scripture only according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. And he adds that there are five different patristic interpretations of St. Matt. 16:18: (1) That St. Peter is the Rock, taught by seventeen Fathers; (2) that the whole Apostolic College is the Rock, represented by Peter as its chief, taught by eight; (3) that St. Peter’s faith is the Rock, taught by forty-four; (4) that Christ is the Rock, taught by sixteen; (5) that the Rock is the whole body of the faithful. Several who teach (x) and (2) also teach (3) and (4), and so the Archbishop sums up thus: “If we are bound to follow the greater number of Fathers in this matter, then we must hold for certain that the word Petra means not Peter professing the faith, but the faith professed by Peter”. – Friedrich, Docum. ad illust. Conc. Vat. I. pp. 185-246.”
A former Roman Catholic seminary professor documents at least five (5) differing interpretations of Matthew 16. Much more has been written on this topic and I’m sure your studies will show you.
You write:
Since individual Church Fathers are only human and not inspired or infallible, there of course isn’t unanimity — but the primacy of the Roman Church has been upheld since the early second century, and the primacy of Peter, based specifically on this verse, has been held forth since th third and fourth by the likes of Cyprian, Augustine, and Jerome, just to name a few of many.
My Reply:
That’s just not true, Joseph. As I documented here, using Roman Catholic scholars Matthew’s gospel was written for the church in Antioch – not Rome. So it’s not possible that it was meant to uphold the “primacy of the Roman Church”.
As to the ECF’s you cite, Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage called a council in 254 to contradict Stephen the bishop of Rome – and the churches obeyed the council not the “pope”. In fact, Cyprian in his Epistles cites Stephen as the first Roman bishop to use Matthew 16 that way. Augustine went to the secular Roman Emperor Honorius, to have Pope Zosimus’s Pelagianism overturned.
Again, I think your studies will make that plain. Facts are stubborn things.
You wrote:
You might check out the recent string of posts by Prayson Daniel, who has been scouring the Church Fathers for arguments against the traditional Roman interpretation of Matt 16:18, for anything that even resembles dissent, and in my opinion, not being very successful. I would like to see some other “variation” if you know of it.
My reply:
Please see the above quotation from Archbishop Kenrick. Other Catholic source would include Fr. Richard McBrien (Notre Dame), Fr. Klaus Schatz, S.J., and Professor Oscar Cullmann who wrote the pre-eminent book on Peter. Cullmann devotes a significant portion of his book to the various interpretation of Matthew 16. And they are many and varied.
You wrote:
My comment about Catholics and “literal” interpretation was in part a tongue-wag at the person I was replying to, I admit. But there are certainly many, many cases, including this one, in which the plain sense of Scripture supports the traditional Catholic understanding, and was never seriously questioned until the time of the Reformation; and in which Protestants go to great circumlocutions of logic to offer alternative interpretations.
My reply:
Really? What about Matthew 16:23? Matthew 23:9? Mark 9:33-35?
You wrote:
You speak specifically of John 6. I have a bit about that one before. Though it’s true that John often offers spiritual and allegorical interpretations, in that particular case, Jesus Himself rather insists on a literal interpretation, restating it even more explicitly when his listeners expressed disbelief and disgust, at the expense of losing “many followers,” rather than correcting them if they had in fact misunderstood Him.
My reply:
Really? So you think Jesus is literally a “gate” (John 10:7)? Some bread? (John 6:35)?
You wrote:
As I said in my initial comment to you, my argument here was only marginally built upon the “standard” Matthew 16:18, but you’ve conveniently ignored the whole rest of my argument, which I found much more compelling than that one by itself. It’s explicitly clear in numerous passages that Jesus invested His Apostles with His own authority. The debate about whether or not Peter is the “rock” (it’s quite clear that he is, as many knowledgable Protestant scholars of Greek admit: Jesus’s wordplay on Peter’s name is explicit) becomes nearly irrelevant when the rest of Jesus’s proclamation to Peter, about binding and loosing and the keys and the gates of the kingdom, is considered — even more so when it’s illuminated by Old Testament prophecy.
My reply:
I didn’t ignore your argument – conveniently or otherwise. Rather, my point is that you don’t understand the proper way for Catholics to use the Scriptures as required by Rome. Because of that, your arguments are in the form of Protestant arguments. It does little good to argue – one Protestant to another – about Bible verses in defense of Rome’s authority, don’t you agree?
You wrote:
It’s very clear that Peter was an imperfect servant — but the very fact that he could be “satan,” a thrice-denier, have “so little faith,” and still be the most intimate and prominent of all the Apostles, and the “rock” on which Jesus would build the Church, echoes the whole heart of the Gospel, about forgiveness and restoration and using the lowly (a fisherman!) for God’s purposes.
My reply:
That’s lovely. But if you can’t show where that is the official, Magisterial interpretation of “the whole heart of the gospel” you’re just engaging in the type of “private interpretation” your supposed to avoid.
You wrote:
You yourself admit that Jesus isn’t always meant to be taken literally, and reject the Catholic reading of John 6 on that very point — and then you turn and read Matthew 23 with gross literalness, when it’s clear in this and many other places in Matthew that Jesus makes use of hyperbole as a rhetorical device.
My reply:
I think you’re getting ahead of yourself, Joseph. Here is the quote from your blog:
“Evidently, we Catholics interpret Scripture more literally and realistically than you, and accept it more readily for what it actually says in its plainest sense.”
So I was just taking you at your word.
You wrote:
Regarding calling the pope or the saints or anyone else “holy”: that word does have different senses. No one means to suppose that the pope as “Holy Father” is in any way holy in the same sense as God, or that anyone who leads a “holy” life is in any way divine.
My reply:
I didn’t say anything about “divine”, Joseph. I just quoted Jesus – in the literal sense as per your blog.
Again, is that the official Magisterial interpretation, or are you acting like a Protestant again?
You wrote:
Thanks for your kind words. If it sounds that I’m getting heated, it’s because I am passionate about this. Though there have been many good fruits of Protestantism, I think there is much more misunderstanding between Protestants and Catholics than there is any cause for be in opposition to one another in this day and age. The wounds of the Reformation were bitter to both sides, but we all follow the same Christ and believe in the same Gospel and are charged to share the same Love.
My Reply:
You are welcome and thanks to you, too. As a former Roman Catholic I appreciate your earnestness and energy. And I applaud your study. I’m afraid that as you dig deeper you’ll find that Rome’s claims won’t hold up.
Blessings.
My argument is my argument. Am I not right? My argument supports Rome. Just because you think I am arguing “like a Protestant” does not invalidate my argument. As I said before, you apparently do not understand the Church’s position.
Among the material I’ve spent the most time studying is the Roman Catechism (the Catechism of the Council of Trent) and the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. If anything, I have studied more pre–Vatican II material than post–. Please don’t treat me as if I don’t know what I’m talking about.
The pope “outlawed” the Scriptures!? That is no doubt the most bizarre claim I’ve ever heard about any pope. The Reformation popes and the Council of Trent condemned many errors, but the very idea of “outlawing the Scriptures” is absurd. This is the Church of Christ we are talking about. The Church has always held, held then, and continues to hold now that Scripture is the written and infallible Word of God. Every argument any pope and any council has ever made has rested on a firm foundation of Scripture.
I suppose what you really mean by “outlawing the Scriptures” is that the Catholic Church tried to keep Scripture out of the hands of common people, or forbade people from reading Scripture. You are incorrect there, too. You accuse me of “arguing like a Protestant” in my insistence that I can read and interpret Scripture: but the position of the Church has always been that her people are encouraged to read and study Scripture under the auspices of the Church. After all, who were the Church Fathers but interpreters of Scripture? Who was St. Augustine? Who was St. Thomas Aquinas? St. Robert Bellarmine? Where people such as Wycliffe and Hus and eventually Luther got into trouble was their insistence to interpret the Scriptures apart from and against the Church rather than in and with the Church. Neither they nor anyone else has ever been forbidden to study the Scriptures.
And as for the Church forbidding anyone from having access to the Scriptures: history indicates otherwise. Since the very beginning, the Church’s commission has been to “preach the Gospel to all nations” (Mark 16:15). In the first century, Greek was the common lingua franca. Translations to many other languages — Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Gothic — followed suit as the Gospel was spread. The Latin Vulgate itself under St. Jerome, revising Old Latin versions of the text, perhaps reached more people than any other translation. For many centuries Latin was the most widely understood language across Europe. Sts. Cyril and Methodius and their translations for the Slavs brought about the invention of the Cyrillic alphabet. Even with the rise of vernacular languages the Church made every effort to give the people the Scriptures in their own language. The printing press of Gutenberg opened up whole new avenues for distribution of the Bible beginning in the 1450s, which before was prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. The first printed translation of the Bible into vernacular Italian appeared in 1472; in Spanish, in 1478; in German, in the 1450s, a good seventy years before Luther’s — in all three cases by Dominican priests, all under the consent of the Catholic Church. The history of the Bible in English is admittedly a bit more troublesome — the translation of the Scriptures was embroiled in the thick of Reformation politics — but even Tyndale was not persecuted merely for his translation of the Bible, but for the errors against orthodoxy that he taught. Rather than keeping the English Bible out of people’s hands, it was the labors of English Catholic priests, themselves under heavy persecution, who labored to translate and print the Rheims New Testament in 1582 and the Douay Old Testament in 1609, still years before the King James Version.
The context of the quote you give above was the protection of the people of God from the doctrinal chaos and confusion that ensued from the Protestant Reformation and has since resulted in some 40,000 separate Protestant sects since. In light of that, I think the language is fairly mild and generous — it does not excommunicate violators but refers them to their local bishops for discipline. Remember, this decree applies only to members of the Catholic Church in good standing, not to those who had already separated from the Church.
You should probably know a few things about that quote:
1. First, the citation and English translation you give comes from an anti-Catholic tract, Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome (1886) by Richard Frederick Littledale, so already it is biased, not a simple “quote [from] a Catholic Archbishop and seminary professor” as you claim.
2. The source from which Littledale got the quote, Documenta ad Illustrandum Concilium Vaticanum, itself is a compilation of documents from opponents of the First Vatican Council and its decree on papal infallibility. Its compiler, Johann Friedrich, was excommunicated from the Church and became a leader of the schismatic Old Catholic Church.
3. The author of the document, Archbishop Kenrick, was also an opponent of the doctrine of papal infallibility, which this argument is directed to rejecting. Some aspects of his argument are also put forward by Archbishop Ketteler of Mainz. Unfortunately, neither one of them supports his argument very well. For the first couple of interpretations, they do name the Fathers who held those views — strangely enough, the same names appear in more than one list! For the latter supposed interpretations, they don’t name even one of the Fathers who held those views, let alone sixteen!
4. Both Kenrick and Ketteler accepted and submitted to the decrees of the Council after they were adopted.
So I’m very interested in this argument, but without source citations, I’m unable to follow up on it. The debate over papal infallibility was a mess of both politics and theology; I don’t think this is a very good point for you to base any claims that the Church “varied” in its views. Certainly the Church Fathers held a diversity of opinions, but their differences of opinion are irrelevant: what matters are the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church — the communion of bishops in the Church’s ecumenical councils — whose views have not varied. As I indicated above, the primacy of Rome was accepted very early on.
The passage in Matthew was meant to uphold the primacy of Peter as an Apostle. Perhaps at the time of its writing, Peter was still bishop of Antioch. But the primacy was attached to Peter and his successors, not to Antioch. Peter’s final position was as bishop of Rome.
Of course, the doctrine of Petrine primacy developed over a period of time. It was perhaps not proclaimed in the form it eventually took until Pope Leo the Great and his role at the Council of Chalcedon (451). But St. Clement of Rome, the third successor of Peter, wrote his Letter to the Corinthians (generally dated ca. A.D. 96, but arguably earlier) to settle a succession dispute in the Corinthian Church — clearly a case of the bishop of Rome exercising magisterial authority over another Church. St. Irenaeus, in Adversus haereses (ca. A.D. 180), wrote:
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; . . . [We refute the heretics] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (III.3.1–2)
The Councils of Carthage under Cyprian were not ecumenical councils; neither were the councils in Rome that opposed them. They were sectarian gatherings of African bishops on one hand and Roman bishops on the other. The “churches” who “obeyed the council” were the African churches, not the whole Church. No one supposes that either’s councils had binding authority. It was a very tense time in the Church, with disputes over what to do about lapsed Christians who repented. Cyprian’s view was that such Christians needed to be re-baptized; Stephen’s was the orthodox position, which the Church had always held and still holds, that rebaptism for penitent sinners is unnecessary. Stephen’s view was eventually accepted by the whole Church. Though Cyprian disagreed with Rome on these matters, he never rejected the ultimate primacy of Rome and affirmed it throughout his life:
“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on the Rock [Peter] by the voice of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever gathers elsewhere, scatters.” (Epistle 39 [43])
(For an extended study of St. Cyprian and his views toward the primacy of the See of Peter, see this article.)
Regarding the situation with St. Augustine and Pope St. Zosimus: Pope Zosimus was not a Pelagian, and you are misrepresenting the situation.
What about them?
I referred a literal interpretation of John 6; John 10 is not at issue here. And yes, I absolutely believe that Jesus is the Bread of Life, as He Himself says — that He gives us Body for us to eat so that we might abide in Him and He in us; that He literally, really becomes “a piece of Bread” (Luke 22:19).
The “proper way” for Catholics to use Scriptures “as required by Rome”? What, pray tell, is that? The Church does not dictate how one can and can’t use Scripture. I use it the way I use it. Perhaps you should be reminded of Scripture itself:
All Scripture is breathed out 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. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
Scripture is given to the Church for the teaching of the faith, for our instruction and edification and spiritual nourishment. I read and study Scripture every day. Every week, the priests of the Church exposit Scripture in their homilies. I am a teacher and catechist in the RCIA of my parish, and I do all I can to teach the truth of the Church from Scripture to those I meet. This is “the proper way for Catholics to use the Scriptures.” I can just as well use Scripture to support the truth of Rome as you can use to reject it. You are refusing to engage my arguments — perhaps you’re willing to acknowledge their validity?
Oh, so that’s it. You think Catholics are “supposed to avoid” “private interpretation”? You think, apparently, that Catholics are not free to think for themselves? That I can’t draw anything from Scripture on my own at all? That I can’t say anything that the Magisterium hasn’t said? Again, I must insist that you’re under a gross misunderstanding of the teachings of the Church. The Church encourages her children to study Scripture by any means they can:
23. The bride of the incarnate Word, the Church taught by the Holy Spirit, is concerned to move ahead toward a deeper understanding of the Sacred Scriptures so that she may increasingly feed her sons with the divine words. Therefore, she also encourages the study of the holy Fathers of both East and West and of sacred liturgies. Catholic exegetes then and other students of sacred theology, working diligently together and using appropriate means, should devote their energies, under the watchful care of the sacred teaching office of the Church, to an exploration and exposition of the divine writings. This should be so done that as many ministers of the divine word as possible will be able effectively to provide the nourishment of the Scriptures for the people of God, to enlighten their minds, strengthen their wills, and set men’s hearts on fire with the love of God. The sacred synod encourages the sons of the Church and Biblical scholars to continue energetically, following the mind of the Church, with the work they have so well begun, with a constant renewal of vigor. (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: Dei Verbum [1965])
Again, you are calling my argument “lovely” and nonetheless refusing to engage it. Either it is valid, or it’s not. What you think I’m not “supposed” to do doesn’t affect the validity of my argument.
You are mocking my words and taking them out of context, and I really do not appreciate it. I used those words in a specific context, and I clarified that context in my response to you. The context of Scripture dictates that it should sometimes be taken for what it says on its face; at other times the authors are clearly using figurative language. John 6 is a passage in which Jesus emphasizes several times that he means what he says — and Catholic exegetes rightly accept the plain meaning of the text. Matthew 23 is a passage in which Jesus plainly raises his voice rhetorically and in high hyperbole — and we rightly interpret it as such. You are once again refusing to engage my arguments. Don’t patronize me, sir.
I didn’t say anything about “divine”, Joseph. I just quoted Jesus – in the literal sense as per your blog.
You’re forgetting what you’re talking about. The comment about “holiness” does not relate to quote from Jesus, but from Paul, the Psalms, etc. And “literally” the word “holy” has different meanings and uses. In any case, the reference in Psalms, from which Paul is quoting, suggests that “no one is holy,” and then goes on in verse 5 to say that “God is with the generation of the righteous.” So clearly the Psalmist does not mean that “no one is holy” — he is using a rhetorical device.
Again, you’re misunderstanding. For what it’s worth, yes, my interpretations are based on a thorough study of Catholic interpretation and doctrine, and is in accord with the Magisterium.
And I’m afraid, and saddened, that you must have had an awfully poor foundation as a Catholic to have rejected Christ’s Church so easily. I would suggest that you have a lot of misunderstandings of Catholic doctrine and history. The more I study, the deeper I dig, the more utterly convinced I am of Rome’s truth. I wonder if perhaps you haven’t examined Rome’s claims for what they are, but rather distortions and misrepresentations of them.
I don’t expect you to reply to me again. But if you do, I trust you will address my arguments and not mock them.
Pingback: How Catholics are supposed to interpret the Scriptures. | anactofmind