In my ongoing interaction with my friend, Joseph, it is very clear that Joseph doesn’t want to believe what I say that the Catholic Church actually teaches with regard to the use of Holy Scripture. Fair enough. So I thought I would provide some further historical evidence to help us in our discussion.
It is well to remember Joseph’s recent question to me in order to understand his concern:
What makes Protestants able to offer their own interpretations of Scripture, and Catholics unable?
I explained earlier that the answer to that question is Rome itself, specifically in the canons and decrees of the Councils of Trent and both Vatican Councils as well as the dogmatic Creed of Pope St. Pius IV. That is the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.
But just to augment that further, I would like to focus some attention on another dogmatic Catholic document, “PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on the Study of Holy Scripture.”[i] This is important for several reasons and the most important for our purposes is that this encyclical, like all others, is “irreformable”. That means that Catholics must believe it as if it were written today. Additionally, PD accurately cites Catholic Tradition to that point and provides the groundwork for the later second Vatican council.
So let’s see what Pope Leo XIII had to say about Catholics and Bible study:
1. “For the language of the Bible is employed to express, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, many things which are beyond the power and scope of the reason of man…”[ii]
This should be helpful in understanding why it is that Catholics cannot rely on their own “reason”.
2. “Wherefore it must be recognized that the sacred writings are wrapt in a certain religious obscurity, and that no one can enter into their interior without a guide…”[iii]
This aligns clearly with what we saw earlier about the Magisterium being the “sole” (only) interpreter of Scripture. Even where Catholics are permitted to engage in the study of Scripture they must always adhere to the “true sense” which only the Magisterium can pronounce.
And then Leo goes on to lay out Catholic Tradition further….
3. “His [Irenaeus’] teaching, and that of other Holy Fathers, is taken up by the Council of the Vatican, which, in renewing the decree of Trent declares its “mind” to be this – that “in things of faith and morals, belonging to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be considered the true sense of Holy Scripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the Church, whose place it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against such sense or also against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.”
Here we clearly see the use of the idea of the “true sense” of Scripture which Leo traces back to Irenaeus and which we have seen was codified at Trent. And it must be remembered that Trent put two qualifications on this “true sense”: it must be officially pronounced by the Magisterium and it must be consonant with Tradition. What else is clear is that “no one” may interpret Scripture against that sense, that is, in any other way.
The noted Catholic historian Dr. Garry Wills writes,
A further implication of Leo’s position is that the church, as the guardian of the historical tradition, holds a monopoly on the relevant evidence: [quoting from Providentissimus Deus] “The uncontaminated sense of Holy Scripture cannot be discovered at all [neutiquam] without the church. And laypersons cannot study scripture on their own since, “no one can penetrate its ambiguities without moral guidance [aliquo vitae duce].[iv]
Dr. Wills, it should be noted, was educated in a Jesuit seminary. He went on to earn one of his two Masters degrees at Xavier University in Cincinnati which is also a fine Jesuit institution.
What Happens when Catholics rely on Tradition and dispense with Reason
Shortly after Leo penned PD, he established the Pontifical Biblical Commission. The PBC’s function was to “police Catholic thought on the Bible, threatening and punishing any exegetes who departed from its directives.” In effect, Leo was using the PBC to enforce the “true sense” interpretation of Scripture that the Roman Catholics had reserved to the Magisterium for the last 500 years. So how did that work out? Not so well, it seems.
Dr. Wills, once more:
The pope did his most lasting damage to Bible scholarship when he set up the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1902, which for decades would police Catholic thought on the Bible, threatening and punishing any exegetes who departed from its directives. These directives included, in the decades to come, that Catholic priests must be taught in their seminaries that the first five books were written personally by Moses, that Eve was literally created from Adam’s rib, and that the Beloved Disciple wrote the fourth gospel. Catholic professors, thus fettered, became a laughingstock in the world of biblical scholarship.[v]
This incident shows two things that are important for my interaction with Joseph. First, that the PBC under the direction of five popes guided Catholics away from using reason. Second, it shows that the final authority for interpreting the Scriptures is only the Magisterium – even when it contradicts reason.
Soli Deo Gloria
[i] http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Wills, Garry. Why I am a Catholic. New York. Houghton Mifflin Company: 2002. P. 202
[v] Ibid.
Reblogged this on Reformation500.
Gary Wills is a noted opponent of the authority of the papacy and the priesthood and many other traditional aspects of the Catholic Church. You don’t win any support for your points by appealing to him with me.
I have read this post. And I entirely agree with and support and affirm the positions of Pope Leo and his successors. If that, to you, means that there is no point in continuing this conversation, then very well. We have an irreconcilable difference of opinion. I prefer to cleave to my Holy Mother Church and the protection and guidance of her Magisterium, rather than submit to the doctrinal chaos that inevitably flows from submitting the authority of Scripture to the authority of the individual’s private interpretation.
Peace to you, sir.
What does Garry Wills opinion on the papacy and the priesthood have to do with how Catholics interpret Scripture, Joseph, except to display your ongoing penchant for ad hominem? Don’t you have anything of substance to say other than to attack people?
And the irony is that even though you think you affirm Pope Leo, the fact is that you contradict him. Your original point to me was that you believe Catholics have the right to interpret the Scriptures on their own. If you had read Leo’s encyclical, or my post, you would have seen that Leo forbade that.
I wish you the best Joseph. And I sincerely hope that the Holy Spirit will open your eyes to those dogmatic pronouncements from your denomination that you are bound to believe – but apparently don’t.
Blessings to you.
My point was, if you expected your appeal to Garry Wills as a “noted Catholic historian” to lend his voice any air of authority, you were wrong. My rejection of him is not an ad hominem; I simply disagree with his interpretations, as I do with yours.
I don’t think I really have anything else to say to you.
To indict Dr. Wills is to undermine your own effort, Joseph, because he received the finest Catholic education available. If you fail to deal with his specific presentation and choose to malign him you cast doubt on the Catholic system. And you certainly are within your rights to disagree. But as far as I am concerned you have not offered anything or substance about which to disagree. As an example, I cited your position that Catholics should be able to use their own “reason” when interpreting the Scriptures and contrasted that with Pope Leo XIII’s clear prohibition against that idea. All you did was say you agree with Leo all the while maintaining a position that is diametrically opposed. What are we supposed to do with that, Joseph?
At any rate, I think we may be through here. The outcome should be obvious to all who read this. I do wish you every good thing and continue to pray for you and your family.
Blessings!