Sacred
Scripture and its place in the Church
Refuting Sola Scriptura Opening Essay
By. Matthew James Bellisario 2008
Introduction
I will address in these series of essays the incorrect
use of the Sacred Scriptures of those who reside outside
of the Catholic Church. More in particular the fallacy
that the Sacred Scriptures are the only source of Divine
Revelation given to us by Our Lord. The simplistic
refutations that are often used today in Catholic
apologetics, while they have their place, are often void
of the introspection needed to fully understand the
proper place of the Sacred Scriptures within the Church,
both the Old and New Testaments. Although I will point
out where the Sola Scriptura position misses the mark in
its assertion that Sacred Scripture is the only authority
we need , or have as Christians, I will also focus in on
the proper function of the Sacred Scriptures as they have
been used consistently by the Church throughout the ages.
We must understand how Sacred Tradition, or the Gospel
lives and breathes within the Church. In this study we
will find that not only were the Scriptures not used as
an isolated vehicle to give us the Word, we will find
that the Word is not a written Word, but a living one
that cannot be contained in a written source. It is the
living Gospel in practice among the faithful.
To say that the Sacred Scriptures were not used to help
teach the faith, would of course be incorrect. We can see
many Church Fathers using the Sacred Scriptures to
admonish heretics and unbelievers. The Scriptures were
held in high esteem by them just as they should be, and
as they are now in the Catholic Church. To assume that
this was the only source, or authority that they used
would be an impossible conclusion to prove, and is quite
unrealistic. We will find that in order for the
Scriptures to exist in their rightful place, we must have
their correct interpretation that coincides with what was
taught by the apostles as well as their intimate union
within Church worship. The coming of Christ drastically
changed, or corrected the interpretation of the Old
Testament, as well as also giving us the complete Divine
Revelation not offered by Our Lord before His coming. So
we must also focus in on Christ Himself in light of
Divine Revelation. Jesus Christ is the Word that is being
spoken and proclaimed by the Church as guided by the Holy
Spirit, which is called the Gospel. We will find that
this Gospel is not written alone, but is proclaimed
through the Church, of which we have some of it in
written testimony called the Sacred Scriptures (New
Testament).
Before I get into the heart of this essay I wanted
clarify a few terms. The use of the term Sacred Scripture
today often includes both Testaments. When I use the term
Sacred Scripture I will be referring to the New Testament
unless otherwise noted OT for Old Testament. I will also
use the abbreviation of NT for the New Testament. The
distinction of noting them both separately will be
important in understanding my essays.
Sacred Scripture in the eyes of the Jewish Rabbis
In order to gain a better understanding of the place of
the OT/NT in the Church, we must look into the past to
see how the ancient Jews looked at the OT and how they
viewed the handing on of their faith. Although they did
not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit that Jesus
guaranteed we would have, they did use the same
principals that would be handed down to the early Church.
In reading many sources on Judaism one point is crystal
clear. They did not hold to a Scripture alone position
regarding God's Divine Revelation to them. In regards to
the Torah, they believed that there was the written Torah
and the Oral Torah (Torah
she-be-al peh) that
coincided with it. They believed that this oral tradition
held the same weight and antiquity that the written text
did. (1995 Ariel) This also mirrors the Catholic position
on the OT/NT. To the Jews, the Torah was a living
revelation and not a static written code. It is
understood by the Jewish people that every written law
must be accompanied by an oral one to preserve proper
interpretation of the written. (2006 Steinsaltz) We can
see this mentality mirrored in the writings of the
Christian Fathers.
St. Basil the Great (A.D. 329-379) writes:
"Of the
dogmas and kergymas preserved in the Church, some we
possess from written teaching and others we receive from
the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in
mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force.
No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate,
who is even moderately versed in manners ecclesiastical.
Indeed, were we to try to reject the unwritten customs as
having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure
the Gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce
kergyma to a mere term" (Holy Spirit
27:66).”
In short we can see that Christianity developed largely
out of the Jewish mindset as far as religious practices
go, including an oral handing on of doctrine and law as
well as written. We can see in the OT God giving
authority to certain individuals to decide disputes among
the community. We can see an example in
Deut
17:8-9. In the book
of Ezra we also see another clear example of an oral
teaching side by side with the reading of the Torah to
explain it correctly to the people. When Ezra read the
Scriptures aloud we see a group of Levites standing by
him expounding the full meaning of the text. (2006
Steinsaltz) Scripture alone was not a practice of ancient
Judaism,, nor of ancient Christianity.
The New Testament reference to Scripture, and Tradition
In reading
many passages from the NT we often see references to
Sacred Scripture. In reading the NT we must understand
the the NT does not understand itself to be Scripture in
its own text. In other words, when the term Scripture is
used in the NT it is always referring to the OT, while
the teaching about Christ is “Spirit” which teaches us
how to understand the OT. As Pope Benedict XVI points
out, “Before
the idea of a “canon” of NT Scripture had been
formulated, the Church had already developed a different
concept of what was canonical; she had as her Scripture
the OT, but this Scripture needed a canon of NT
interpretation, which the Church saw as existing in the
traditio guaranteed by the succio.”
(2008
Ratzinger) It is important to understand this principal
when reading the NT. In the early Church we have not only
the complete Divine Revelation revealed to us, but also a
new and complete understanding of the OT, in light of the
coming of Christ. Throughout the NT we see authority
being given to preach the Gospel. We can see this
succession being established in the pages of the NT.
Examples are witnessed in Acts 6:6-7, Acts 1:20-26, Act
14:23, 2 Tim 1:6 and 2 Tim 3:14. We can see from the NT
that it is not only what doctrine is passed down, but by
whom it is being passed down from. This in turn is
forming a consistent apostolic line that would be passed
down in the Church until the end of time, which the Holy
Spirit is given to guide. Jn 14:25.
I am amazed to see the texts used to justify Sola
Scriptura. Usually you will see I Tim 3:15-17 or Acts
17:11 sited as a proof-texts. The Church has always held
that Sacred Scripture is authoritative as it is the
written form of the Gospel. But the church has never held
that the Scriptures were to stand alone as some kind of
standard or rule, separated from the complete Gospel,
which includes Tradition and the Church. In fact no place
in the Sacred Scriptures, OT or NT, will make this claim,
nor is it ever implied. In II Timothy 3:15-17 we can see
this calling for people to use Scripture as a source for
Doctrine and correction. We must also understand that the
OT is the Scripture that is being referenced here in this
passage. This being observed as such, we can also deduce
that this concept would also carry over to the NT when it
was finally given to us as “Scripture”. So we see how
Scripture is indeed a source for doctrine and correction,
but an authority must accompany it in order for it to be
understood correctly as St. Paul says in 2 Thess 3:6 and
1 Cor 11:2. Saint Paul and the NT writers are following
right in the footsteps of Judaism in regards to the use
of Sacred Scripture. They understood the importance of an
authority to correctly spread the Gospel, as well as an
accompanying oral tradition.
What is Sacred Tradition as understood by the Church?
Many seem to
understand Tradition as being an addition to the Sacred
Scriptures. This however is an incorrect, or incomplete
way to view it. In fact Sacred Tradition properly
understood includes the Sacred Scriptures, both OT and
NT. To view it as something in addition to, or going
along side with Scripture gives us a reduced
understanding of how and what the Word of God is, and how
it is given to us. We can see the how the Church in its
battle with Gnosticism clarified its view as to what
Tradition is. In fact the Church viewed it as the
relation of the living faith in reference to the
apostolic succession of the bishops, while the Gnostics
viewed it as a secret oral tradition handed down from the
apostles. There is a big difference in the two views.
Pope Benedict XI points out, “The
Church invoked Tradition, not in order to set unwritten
apostolic doctrine alongside Scripture, but precisely in
order to dispute the existence of any such secret
heritage.” He also points out that apostolic succession
and apostolic tradition define each other. He says, “ the
succession is the form of the tradition, and the
tradition is the content of the succession”.
(2008
Ratzinger)
We can contend that Sacred Tradition is the preaching and
passing on of the Word of God, or the Gospel. As we see
in Rom 10:14-15, the Word is heard, preached, and not
read. There must be a sending, or mission as commissioned
by Christ through his apostles, as continued in the same
manner to those following in the apostles footsteps. This
is witnessed in Heb 13:7, Gal 1:8. This is upheld by the
early Christian Fathers in their writings, sermons and
homilies. Saint Chrysostom in his homily on the Second
Letter to the Thessalonians speaks on the
2nd
Chapter and
15th
verse,
“So then,
brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye
were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.
”Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all
things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in
like manner both the one and the other are worthy of
credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the
Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no
farther. Here he shows that there were many who were
shaken.” As to the
existence of Tradition in the Church as a source of
Divine revelation there can be no doubt .
There are some that claim that the oral passing on of
Revelation ended with the apostles. We can see that this
was not the case. Saint Chrysostom wrote of this
Tradition in the 4th
century.
There are also other early Christian witnesses that
attest to the authority of Tradition, such Saint
Epiphanius of Salamis who wrote in his Panacea against
all heresies, “It is
needful also to make use of Tradition; for not everything
can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The holy Apostles
handed down some things in the Scriptures, other things
in Tradition.” Some also
claim that once the NT canon was defined that the use of
Tradition was discontinued. That is also not a reality.
The reality of the Gospel being a living Word passed on
by oral Tradition, with some of it written in Scripture
is a matter of fact as attested to by the Sacred
Scriptures themselves as well as the witness of
Christians throughout the history of the Church. We can
also deduce that there must be an established authority
in order to guarantee the living Word throughout the
world. Tradition and Scripture are one in the same. They
are the same Word of God in two forms, one in substance.
Just as water can be liquid and solid, the Word of God is
oral and written, one and the same substance.
I would like to point out an example of how Tradition has
given us dogma which is not found explicitly in Sacred
Scripture, only implicitly. Genesis 38:9-10 deals with
the improper use of the sexual act. Without Tradition we
have no clear understanding of this passage. I often
witness Protestants accusing the Catholic Church of
changing its doctrines, yet we see a clear fundamental
teaching of the Christian faith changed by nearly every
Protestant church over the last 70 years or so. In 1930
at the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church decided it
was OK to use contraception, and almost every Protestant
church soon followed in their footsteps. Once again we
see what happens when you dismiss the authority of Christ
and His Church, and privately interpret Scripture. We now
have millions of people calling themselves “Christians”
yet committing an unspeakable abomination against
Almighty God. Not only is contraception intrinsically
evil, but millions of those using the “pill” are also
unwittingly adding to the list of abortions by the
millions. What I find interesting is that even Protestant
heros such as Calvin and Luther opposed the use of
contraception. (Provan 1989)
I would like to add one final thought to sum up the
definition of Tradition as it relates to the Scriptures.
Although interpretation is an important function of
Tradition, it is much more than that. It is more than
exegetical interpretation, but it is also a partaking in
the spiritual authority that God has given us in the very
being of the Church's existence as well as her faith and
Liturgy. So the deposit of faith is comprised of the OT
Scriptures in light of the coming of Christ, Christ the
Word Himself which includes oral and written, living in
the heart of the faithful as guided by the Holy Spirit
within the apostolic authority (Church) given to us by
Christ Himself. As Pope Benedict XVI says,
“We can
further note that the New Testament Scriptures do not
appear as one principle alongside apostolic tradition;
still less (as in the case with us), do the New Testament
Scriptures together with the Old Testament, stand as one
single entity “Scripture”, which could be contrasted with
“tradition” as a second entity. Rather, the complex of
New Testament event and reality appears together as a
developing dual yet single principle, that of Gospel; as
such, it is contrasted on the one hand, with the Old
Testament and on the other, with the specific events in
the subsequent age of the Church. Its inner unity is
quite visibly stronger and more important than its
division into written and unwritten, so that despite
these two forms of realization it can be contrasted as a
single principle with the Old Testament.” He continues to
say, “the implanting of the gospel in men's hearts,
articulated in the second principle (the second principal
being the preaching of the Christ) , which goes beyond
what can be captured in the Scriptures.”
(2008
Ratzinger)
Tradition is not just quoting Church Fathers. Yes, they
can provide evidence of what the Church believed
throughout history, but we cannot rely on these writings,
and Scripture alone either. Adrian Fortescue wrote, “We
must not forget that the early Fathers did not write
their letters or preach their sermons with a view to
supplying evidences of the faith of their time for future
controversialists.” If we had no early church Father
writings today, the Church would still be teaching and
preaching the same living Gospel. I hope that this will
end the misunderstanding that many “Reformers” have about
Tradition. It is my hope that they will no longer refer
to it as an addition to the Scriptures, since it has been
demonstrated that it is not. They are one in the same. As
Vladimir Lossky rightly says, “One can
neither confound them or separate them without depriving
them of the character of fullness that they possess
together.” (Lossky 2005)
Sacred Scripture and Church Worship
It would not be an understatement to say that the NT
canon was formulated, articulated, preached and
interpreted in the Divine Liturgy worship services of the
worldwide Church. (Hahn 2005) In fact the Sacred
Scriptures were predominantly used within her Liturgy
throughout the first 1400 years of the Church, until the
invention of the printing press. I have witnessed many
people saying that the Catholic Church tried to keep the
Scriptures away form the common laity. This fallacy
however shows a clear misunderstanding or ignorance of
the state of society during the ancient periods of the
Church. These Biblical manuscripts were handwritten, and
took many years to complete. Therefore it would be no
surprise to anyone that the Scriptures would be confined
to the churches. The Divine Liturgy was the primary
vehicle the Church would use to teach the masses the Word
of God. The Sacred Scriptures would be read and expounded
upon just as the Jews did in the synagogues. The living
witness of the Holy Spirit within the Church gave the
proper and complete interpretation of the living Word of
God. We have today many homilies preached by the Fathers
of the Church during the Divine Liturgy. The Divine
Liturgy, Sacred Scripture and Theology have an intimate
union that cannot be separated. (Fagerberg 2006)
How do we know that the Body and Blood of Christ become
present during the consecration at the Divine Liturgy? We
know precisely because this is what was taught, and is
taught by the Church in living Word. How do we know that
the Catholic and Orthodox Church interprets the Gospel of
John correctly referring to this doctrine? We can see
that this was the consistent interpretation throughout
Christendom, as revealed in her worship. Saint John
Chrysostom in his homily given during a Liturgy in the
4th
century
confirms that he interpreted it the same way. I don't
have the space to print his whole homily here. There is
no ambiguity in his interpretation of the Gospel of John
6, or 1st Corinthians 11:24-27 where he speaks of eating
the flesh and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ in detail.
He in turn passed on this teaching, and interpretation of
the Scriptures to others, who in turn passed it down and
so forth. The very fact that we have the canon of the NT
today is because they were used in the Divine Liturgy of
the Church as giving witness to the faith that was being
lived out in the Church. More clearly, the Sacred
Scriptures are a written witness to the living faith of
the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Divine Liturgy has always
been the vehicle of faith for the Church and her
faithful. It was not until the Reformation that the
Divine Liturgy would be done away with by the
Protestants, and the use of the Scriptures would become a
tool for private interpretations.
The authority and reverence of Sacred Scripture in the
Church
It must be noted that the Sacred Scriptures have always
been held in high esteem in the Church. This especially
being the case after the NT canon was formulated by the
Church and began to be used in its totality versus
individual books being used in different places. In fact
the Church began to create a calendar that revolved
around the Gospels. The Scriptural readings in the Divine
Liturgy reflected certain readings at different times of
the year reflecting a certain Christ event. This is
maintained in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, while
the Protestant churches have done away with this. In
reality we can see a higher reverence for the Sacred
Scriptures within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches than
the Protestants who claim to hold a Sola Scriptura
position. In fact in the Catholic church we celebrate
many feast days pertaining to Christ events that stem
directly from the Sacred Scriptures. We don't just
celebrate Christmas and Easter as feast days. We include
Christ's Ascension into heaven, the Healing of the Blind
Man, the Transfiguration, the Feast of Pentecost, etc,
etc. The Catholic Church has always held the Sacred
Scriptures in high esteem. We also see the Catholic
Church using the Scriptures, within Tradition to defend
and to teach doctrine and dogma.
The Church's Councils and documents on the Sacred
Scriptures
I wanted to include here a few statements from the
Catholic Church on the Sacred Scriptures to demonstrate
again the rightful place of Sacred Scripture. We can
plainly see that the Catholic Church holds the Sacred
Scriptures in very high esteem. We can also see the
consistent teaching that the Church guided by the Holy
Spirit , within Tradition, is a necessity for proper
interpretation.
Vatican I (Chapter 2 on Revelation) states:
Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy
scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with
the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been
wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and
declare its meaning to be as follows: that
* in matters of faith and morals,
* belonging as they do to the establishing of christian
doctrine,
* that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the
true one,
* which holy mother church held and holds,
since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and
interpretation of holy scripture.
Pope Leo XIII Encyclical on the Holy Scriptures
(PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS paragraph 3.)
3. Among the
reasons for which the Holy Scripture is so worthy of
commendation - in addition to its own excellence and to
the homage which we owe to God's Word - the chief of all
is, the innumerable benefits of which it is the source;
according to the infallible testimony of the Holy Ghost
Himself, who says: "All Scripture, inspired of God, is
profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct
in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished
to every good work."
The Catechism of the Catholic Church States
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely
revealed realities, which are contained and presented in
the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the
apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books
of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with
all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their
author, and have been handed on as such to the Church
herself."70
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore
all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm
should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we
must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly,
faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God,
for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to
the Sacred Scriptures."72
110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention,
the reader must take into account the conditions of their
time and culture, the literary genres in use at that
time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating
then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently
presented and expressed in the various types of
historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts,
and in other forms of literary expression."76
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is
another and no less important principle of correct
interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a
dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and
interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it
was written."77
113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of
the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers,
Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's
heart rather than in documents and records, for the
Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of
God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the
spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . .
according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit
grants to the Church"81).
Part II: Why Sola Scriptura is not a Christian Teaching
The Westminster Confession, and its authority.
I could have started this essay with the same old
arguments on why Sola Scriptura is false. I thought that
I would take a different position for a change and show
how the Scriptures are to be understood correctly as I
have done in the first 3/4 of my essay. I want to look at
some of the claims that the Westminster Confession makes.
The first being on Holy Scripture in which the confession
says, “and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to
declare that his will unto his Church; and afterwards for
the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and
for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church
against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of
Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto
writing;” So this confession would have us believe that
the complete Gospel has been committed to writing, to
better preserve the the truth? My first question is, why
should we believe this confession? It certainly holds no
authority from God to make this matter of fact statement.
The problem with confessions, and private interpretations
of Scripture and the like, is that the claims they make
are always usurped by the their own authority. In more
clearer terms, the one who says that Scripture alone is
the authority, becomes a greater authority than that
which they are proclaiming has the authority. The
Catholic does not have this problem, since Jesus Christ
Himself gives us the authority through His apostles as
guided by the Holy Spirit. We do not have a problem of
authority, as the “Reformer” does whether he will admit
it or not. One cannot say the Scriptures are the only
authority, and then go on to tell us how they are to be
interpreted, and furthermore what the Scriptures are even
to be comprised of. The authority of the Scriptures
becomes usurped by the one telling me what they really
mean, and what they are, since the Scriptures are not
going to speak to me themselves to give me a clear
exegesis.
The problem of the Canon
The “confession” says, III. “The books commonly called
Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part
of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no
authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise
approved, or made use of, than other human writings.” I
would like to ask once again, says who? The “confession”
written by mere men? This is to whom I should answer to?
We can find many different opinions throughout history as
to what books should be in the Canon and what should not
be. Once again, the Church given to us by Jesus tells us
that they are (the Deuterocanonical books) Sacred
Scripture. Who is to ultimately decide upon the
variations of opinions? Although we can find ample
evidence proving that the Deuterocanonical books were
considered Scripture by most Christians for the first
300- 400 years, who is to say they were not wrong? Who is
to say they were correct? If we are to know God's will,
then the authority must come from Him alone, in the means
that He said he would give to us, that is through His
Church, not through a manmade confession.
The Early Church and the “Apocrypha”
The Protestant Scripture scholar Bruce Metzger says in
the Oxford RSV notes, "During
the early Christian centuries most Greek and Latin Church
Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Tertulian, Clement of
Alexandria, and Cyprian (none of whom knew any Hebrew),
quoted passages from the Apocrypha as "Scripture,"
"divine Scripture," "inspired," and the like. In this
period only an occasional Father made an effort to learn
the limits of the Palestinian Jewish canon (as Melito of
Sardis), or to distinguish between the Hebrew text of
Daniel and the addition of the story of Susanna in the
Greek version (as Africanus)." Here we can
deduce that the Deuterocanonical books were viewed as
Sacred Scripture by the vast majority of early
Christians. Why should I, or anyone for that matter
believe the Westminster Confession, telling me they were
all wrong? The Sacred Scriptures were given to us by the
Church, they are part of the living Gospel, and they are
only interpreted within this God-breathed entity. The
entity being the Church that has apostolic succession
back to the apostles with the authority given to them by
Jesus Himself. The Westminster Confession cannot prove
itself to be Divinely inspired, nor apostolic, and
therefore cannot be trusted. It holds itself up to be a
higher authority than the Scriptures by its own action.
If we eliminate the Westminster Confession here, then in
short we must conclude that those who hold to Scripture
alone without some confession, are those who believe in
the clock pendulum swinging, but no clock for it to swing
from.
Sources:
Ariel, David S. What Do Jews Believe. New York: Schocken
Books, 1995.
Ratzinger, Joseph. God's Word. San Francisco: Ignatius P,
2008.
Hahn, Scott. Letter and Spirit. New York: Doubleday, 2005
Fagerberg, David. The Liturgical Mystery and the Mystery
of God (Letter and Spirit Journal Vol2) Steubenville,
Saint Paul Center for Biblical Theology 2006
Provan, Charles D. The Bible and Birth Control.
Monongahela PA: Zimmer Printing 1989
Steinsaltz, Adin. The Essential Talmud. New York: Basic
Books, 2006.
Lossky, Vladimir. In the Image and Likeness of God.
Crestwood NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2005
Fortescue, Adrain. The Early Papacy. San Francisco:
Ignatius Press 2008
Metzger, Bruce M., and May, Herbert G., New Oxford
Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha Expanded Edition RSV.
New York: Oxford UP, 1977.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Libreria Editrice
Vatican 1997
Holy See, ed. "Catechism of the Catholic Church."
Vatican.Va. Vatican/Holy See. .