Anti-Catholicism and False Witness

Preliminary Notes

I am aware that only a minority of non-Catholics are anti-Catholics, so I would hope the non-Catholic who reads this article and does not hold anti-Catholic views would recognize this article is not directed to them.  I do not hold you responsible for those claims, and believe you seek to do what is right even if you disagree with the Church.

For those who would argue the false claims are true, spare me the unattributed quotes ("Well Pope so-and so said thus and so from some unnamed source") from some unhistorical source ("Well, Rev. Jim Bob said this…!").  If you want to claim the Catholic Church taught something evil, link me the document, not what some person claims the document says.  Likewise, if you want to argue there were real "secret Christians" who taught the truth, again, link me the document and not what some person claims was the truth.  Give me documents where the alleged Papal quote was made, not some quote whose source is simply some other book where we have no idea whether it was in context or not.

I would also hope that all readers who might repeat old tales against the Catholic Church would remember that false witness is a sin, and to repeat something falsely either knowing it is false or not verifying whether it is true is bearing false witness.

• You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.  (Ex 20:16).
• The false witness will not go unpunished, and he who utters lies will perish.  (Pr 19:9).
• You know the commandments: ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.’  (Mk 10:19).

/Facepalm

I came across a post by someone who claimed he was not anti-Catholic — and then went on to repeat the tired old canards about the Catholic Church, accusing the Church of being corrupt.  Funny sort of "not-anti-Catholic."

Displaying an ignorance of history and of what Catholics believed, he demonstrated a good deal of prejudice which he apparently thought was true: Of the Church being corrupted by government and "inventing" doctrines, and eventually the truth being rediscovered by Protestants.

I don't see the need to actually link to the site.  The author has said nothing which was not said a thousand times before since the 16th century, so why give his site notoriety?

Now I have no doubt he actually believed this garbage, and so did the people who "recommended" the post to me.

Unfortunately this indicates there are people who rely on the tired old lies repeated over and over, who believe that the Church didn't believe in Transubstantiation until AD 1215, didn't define the canon of Scripture until 1546, and so on.

How Does Anti-Catholicism Differ From Disagreement with the Catholic Church?

I recognize that some people disagree with the Catholic Church on doctrinal grounds and believe the Church got it wrong.  They act in good faith and try to refute the Church from what they believe to be authoritative sources.

However, anti-Catholics are generally people who are not focussing so much on teaching what they believe.  Rather they focus on the alleged wrongs in the Catholic Church.  Hence the label anti Catholic.  They focus on opposing Catholicism, not defending what they believe to be true.

Anti-Catholics generally approach things from the standing that the Church is evil, and try to dredge up the allegations about how the Church "invented" things and burned 20 million people (as Jimmy Swaggart has claimed), was totally corrupted and so on.  When asked to cite sources, either "everyone knows that" or it comes from indirect sources that have unattributed quotes.

Remember, it is no proof to take quotes out of context.  Luther infamously remarked he could fornicate a hundred times a day and not lose his salvation.  He was wrong of course, but he said this as hyperbole of the assurance of salvation and not to give approval to fornication.

"Proof?  We don’t need no Proof!  I don’t have to show you any stinking Proof!”

Of course such claims do not provide any "proof" (I suspect Loraine Boettner would be the common source directly [person read the book] or indirectly [person heard someone repeating claim from book]).  One who believes Catholicism is wrong and is determined to oppose it is often willing to believe any argument claiming to explain how it went wrong.

The problem is, there is no evidence for any "so-called" true church which Catholicism is alleged to have replaced, while the testimony of the Patristics do bear witness to the Sacramental, Apostolic, Hierarchical Church which exists.  So much is the evidence, that many would argue that the Catholic Church overthrew the 'early church' and replaced it (which would make Christ a liar when He said the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt 16:18) and that He would remain until the end of the world (Matt 28:20).

Cardinal Newman's Clever Remark

Indeed, the absence of proof justifying such a claim that the 'true' church was supplanted by Catholicism is so total that John Henry Cardinal Newman (a convert from Anglicanism who became a Catholic when searching for the early church) made the following statement about the claims of the early church being corrupted by Catholicism:

And this utter incongruity between Protestantism and historical Christianity is a plain fact, whether the latter be regarded in its earlier or in its later centuries. Protestants can as little bear its Ante-nicene as its Post-tridentine period. I have elsewhere observed on this circumstance: 'So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that 'when they rose in the morning' her true seed 'were all dead corpses'-Nay dead and buried-and without grave-stone. 'The waters went over them; there was not one of them left; they sunk like lead in the mighty waters.' Strange antitype, indeed, to the early fortunes of Israel!-then the enemy was drowned, and 'Israel saw them dead upon the sea-shore.' But now, it would seem, water proceeded as a flood 'out of the serpent's mouth, and covered all the witnesses, so that not even their dead bodies lay in the streets of the great city.' Let him take which of his doctrines he will, his peculiar view of self-righteousness, of formality, of superstition; his notion of faith, or of spirituality in religious worship; his denial {9} of the virtue of the sacraments, or of the ministerial commission, or of the visible Church; or his doctrine of the divine efficacy of the Scriptures as the one appointed instrument of religious teaching; and let him consider how far Antiquity, as it has come down to us, will countenance him in it. No; he must allow that the alleged deluge has done its work; yes, and has in turn disappeared itself; it has been swallowed up by the earth, mercilessly as itself was merciless.' (The Development of Christian Doctrine Introduction, part 6, Emphasis added)

In other words, the alleged destruction of the so-called 'true church' was so total that we can find no evidence that this church ever existed, AND we can find no trace of whatever destroyed this early Church.

I Don't Buy Claims that "Everyone Knows" but Nobody can Prove

That's kind of hard to swallow, isn't it?  Quite frankly, if I see anyone claiming my Church invented doctrine, I want to see the proof of when it was invented, and I want to see the so-called 'true Christians' of the time who were obligated to defend the faith speaking out against it.  We know of the Christians testifying to the truth against the pagans.  We know of them rejecting Gnosticism, Modalism, Donatism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Pelagianism and Iconoclasm (among others) — often at the risk (or loss) of their lives.

These saints died for the truth of the faith, and we know of the accounts of their deaths… yet we know nothing of those who were obligated to stand up for the faith, yet stayed silent for over a thousand years.

Why is it, that when three quarters of the Empire became Arianism, it was only Rome which stood as a defender of the Trinity?  In the face of all of these heresies, it was Rome leading the way, supporting those who defended the true faith and saying "No, these are lies about our Lord," to the heresies.

Why is it, we know of the heroism of St. John Chrysostom (AD 349-407) who died in exile because he dared defend the Church against Empress Eudoxia and we know about Pope Innocent I defending him… but we know nothing about the so-called "early Christians" who allegedly held the "true" faith against Catholicism?

Why do we have thousands of pages written by St. Augustine (AD 354-430) against the Manichees, the Donatists and the Pelagians, but not one fourth or fifth century defender of Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura?

Not Argument from Silence

The argument from silence fallacy essentially argues that since there is no argument against a position, it must be true, or because there is no argument for a position it must be false.

However, when there is evidence one way, but none against it becomes apparent that the evidence favors the one way.

Bearing False Witness

To speak truly, one has to say of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not.

If one says something is, when it is not or is not when it is, this is not truth.

Now, if a person knows he is speaking something untrue, he is a liar and bears false witness.  if a person speaks something untrue, thinking it is true, his innocence or guilt will depend on whether it was possible to learn the truth or not. If he could find out and does not, he libels or slanders another and is considered negligent in not checking before speaking.

Now we come to bearing witness against the Catholic Church.  Can one find out what we believe by doing research from credible sources?  Indeed.  One can find out from Catholic sites what we believe about others, and one can seek out unbiased history accounts.

However, if one is known to hate the Church or believe it to be evil, it is possible such a source is not objective.  He might rashly believe the worst about the Church.  He might think his ignorance of what the Church believes in comparison to his personal reading of the Bible means the Church "invented" things.  Or possibly, he might believe that in opposing the "evil" of the Church that a "slight" exaggeration is all right.

However, there is no justification to repeating falsehoods against another, and no justification to repeating negative things about another without verifying them to be true first.

Anti-Catholicism and False Witness

Preliminary Notes

I am aware that only a minority of non-Catholics are anti-Catholics, so I would hope the non-Catholic who reads this article and does not hold anti-Catholic views would recognize this article is not directed to them.  I do not hold you responsible for those claims, and believe you seek to do what is right even if you disagree with the Church.

For those who would argue the false claims are true, spare me the unattributed quotes ("Well Pope so-and so said thus and so from some unnamed source") from some unhistorical source ("Well, Rev. Jim Bob said this…!").  If you want to claim the Catholic Church taught something evil, link me the document, not what some person claims the document says.  Likewise, if you want to argue there were real "secret Christians" who taught the truth, again, link me the document and not what some person claims was the truth.  Give me documents where the alleged Papal quote was made, not some quote whose source is simply some other book where we have no idea whether it was in context or not.

I would also hope that all readers who might repeat old tales against the Catholic Church would remember that false witness is a sin, and to repeat something falsely either knowing it is false or not verifying whether it is true is bearing false witness.

• You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.  (Ex 20:16).
• The false witness will not go unpunished, and he who utters lies will perish.  (Pr 19:9).
• You know the commandments: ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.’  (Mk 10:19).

/Facepalm

I came across a post by someone who claimed he was not anti-Catholic — and then went on to repeat the tired old canards about the Catholic Church, accusing the Church of being corrupt.  Funny sort of "not-anti-Catholic."

Displaying an ignorance of history and of what Catholics believed, he demonstrated a good deal of prejudice which he apparently thought was true: Of the Church being corrupted by government and "inventing" doctrines, and eventually the truth being rediscovered by Protestants.

I don't see the need to actually link to the site.  The author has said nothing which was not said a thousand times before since the 16th century, so why give his site notoriety?

Now I have no doubt he actually believed this garbage, and so did the people who "recommended" the post to me.

Unfortunately this indicates there are people who rely on the tired old lies repeated over and over, who believe that the Church didn't believe in Transubstantiation until AD 1215, didn't define the canon of Scripture until 1546, and so on.

How Does Anti-Catholicism Differ From Disagreement with the Catholic Church?

I recognize that some people disagree with the Catholic Church on doctrinal grounds and believe the Church got it wrong.  They act in good faith and try to refute the Church from what they believe to be authoritative sources.

However, anti-Catholics are generally people who are not focussing so much on teaching what they believe.  Rather they focus on the alleged wrongs in the Catholic Church.  Hence the label anti Catholic.  They focus on opposing Catholicism, not defending what they believe to be true.

Anti-Catholics generally approach things from the standing that the Church is evil, and try to dredge up the allegations about how the Church "invented" things and burned 20 million people (as Jimmy Swaggart has claimed), was totally corrupted and so on.  When asked to cite sources, either "everyone knows that" or it comes from indirect sources that have unattributed quotes.

Remember, it is no proof to take quotes out of context.  Luther infamously remarked he could fornicate a hundred times a day and not lose his salvation.  He was wrong of course, but he said this as hyperbole of the assurance of salvation and not to give approval to fornication.

"Proof?  We don’t need no Proof!  I don’t have to show you any stinking Proof!”

Of course such claims do not provide any "proof" (I suspect Loraine Boettner would be the common source directly [person read the book] or indirectly [person heard someone repeating claim from book]).  One who believes Catholicism is wrong and is determined to oppose it is often willing to believe any argument claiming to explain how it went wrong.

The problem is, there is no evidence for any "so-called" true church which Catholicism is alleged to have replaced, while the testimony of the Patristics do bear witness to the Sacramental, Apostolic, Hierarchical Church which exists.  So much is the evidence, that many would argue that the Catholic Church overthrew the 'early church' and replaced it (which would make Christ a liar when He said the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt 16:18) and that He would remain until the end of the world (Matt 28:20).

Cardinal Newman's Clever Remark

Indeed, the absence of proof justifying such a claim that the 'true' church was supplanted by Catholicism is so total that John Henry Cardinal Newman (a convert from Anglicanism who became a Catholic when searching for the early church) made the following statement about the claims of the early church being corrupted by Catholicism:

And this utter incongruity between Protestantism and historical Christianity is a plain fact, whether the latter be regarded in its earlier or in its later centuries. Protestants can as little bear its Ante-nicene as its Post-tridentine period. I have elsewhere observed on this circumstance: 'So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that 'when they rose in the morning' her true seed 'were all dead corpses'-Nay dead and buried-and without grave-stone. 'The waters went over them; there was not one of them left; they sunk like lead in the mighty waters.' Strange antitype, indeed, to the early fortunes of Israel!-then the enemy was drowned, and 'Israel saw them dead upon the sea-shore.' But now, it would seem, water proceeded as a flood 'out of the serpent's mouth, and covered all the witnesses, so that not even their dead bodies lay in the streets of the great city.' Let him take which of his doctrines he will, his peculiar view of self-righteousness, of formality, of superstition; his notion of faith, or of spirituality in religious worship; his denial {9} of the virtue of the sacraments, or of the ministerial commission, or of the visible Church; or his doctrine of the divine efficacy of the Scriptures as the one appointed instrument of religious teaching; and let him consider how far Antiquity, as it has come down to us, will countenance him in it. No; he must allow that the alleged deluge has done its work; yes, and has in turn disappeared itself; it has been swallowed up by the earth, mercilessly as itself was merciless.' (The Development of Christian Doctrine Introduction, part 6, Emphasis added)

In other words, the alleged destruction of the so-called 'true church' was so total that we can find no evidence that this church ever existed, AND we can find no trace of whatever destroyed this early Church.

I Don't Buy Claims that "Everyone Knows" but Nobody can Prove

That's kind of hard to swallow, isn't it?  Quite frankly, if I see anyone claiming my Church invented doctrine, I want to see the proof of when it was invented, and I want to see the so-called 'true Christians' of the time who were obligated to defend the faith speaking out against it.  We know of the Christians testifying to the truth against the pagans.  We know of them rejecting Gnosticism, Modalism, Donatism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Pelagianism and Iconoclasm (among others) — often at the risk (or loss) of their lives.

These saints died for the truth of the faith, and we know of the accounts of their deaths… yet we know nothing of those who were obligated to stand up for the faith, yet stayed silent for over a thousand years.

Why is it, that when three quarters of the Empire became Arianism, it was only Rome which stood as a defender of the Trinity?  In the face of all of these heresies, it was Rome leading the way, supporting those who defended the true faith and saying "No, these are lies about our Lord," to the heresies.

Why is it, we know of the heroism of St. John Chrysostom (AD 349-407) who died in exile because he dared defend the Church against Empress Eudoxia and we know about Pope Innocent I defending him… but we know nothing about the so-called "early Christians" who allegedly held the "true" faith against Catholicism?

Why do we have thousands of pages written by St. Augustine (AD 354-430) against the Manichees, the Donatists and the Pelagians, but not one fourth or fifth century defender of Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura?

Not Argument from Silence

The argument from silence fallacy essentially argues that since there is no argument against a position, it must be true, or because there is no argument for a position it must be false.

However, when there is evidence one way, but none against it becomes apparent that the evidence favors the one way.

Bearing False Witness

To speak truly, one has to say of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not.

If one says something is, when it is not or is not when it is, this is not truth.

Now, if a person knows he is speaking something untrue, he is a liar and bears false witness.  if a person speaks something untrue, thinking it is true, his innocence or guilt will depend on whether it was possible to learn the truth or not. If he could find out and does not, he libels or slanders another and is considered negligent in not checking before speaking.

Now we come to bearing witness against the Catholic Church.  Can one find out what we believe by doing research from credible sources?  Indeed.  One can find out from Catholic sites what we believe about others, and one can seek out unbiased history accounts.

However, if one is known to hate the Church or believe it to be evil, it is possible such a source is not objective.  He might rashly believe the worst about the Church.  He might think his ignorance of what the Church believes in comparison to his personal reading of the Bible means the Church "invented" things.  Or possibly, he might believe that in opposing the "evil" of the Church that a "slight" exaggeration is all right.

However, there is no justification to repeating falsehoods against another, and no justification to repeating negative things about another without verifying them to be true first.

Reflections on Infallibility (Article IVb): Preliminaries on Sources

The Series so Far

1. Article I
2. Article IIa
3. Article IIb
4. Article IIc
5. Interlude
6. Article IId
7. Article IIe
8. Article IIIa
9. Article IIIb
10. Interlude II
11. Article IVa
12. Interlude III

On Using Protestant Sources for Consideration

Before discussing Scripture and Sola Scriptura, which involves looking at what Protestants have to say on the subject, it seems I should first discuss my own criteria for sources I choose.  Obviously to have a true dialogue, we need to be clear on what is believed, and not take a bad argument or a misrepresentation of an argument and treat this as the best Protestantism can come up with.

Trying to Understand What They Mean, Not What I Think They Mean

While it would be tempting to take a Protestant source and give it my own interpretation and claim in a smart-aleck way that "I was taking the plain sense of what he said," this would not be a just way to interpret it.  If I take the words of an author in a way which he did not intend, I am not responding to what he in fact intended to say.  Instead I would be distorting his words. 

While it might be partially the fault of the author for not expressing himself clearly, it would be wrong of me to try to hold the author to a view he never claimed to believe.  Since I believe it is unjust to misrepresent the Catholic Church this way and have protested anti-Catholics using this tactic, it morally follows that I must not misrepresent the belief of another in this way.

Recognition that these Individuals Do Believe and are Trying to Be Faithful

One thing I want to make clear is that even though I disagree with some of their positions, I do recognize they are trying to be faithful Christians.  It is true I believe men like TD Jakes and RC Sproul make errors where they differ from the Catholic faith.  However it is also true I believe they do not hold to these errors out of obstinacy but because they believe them to be true.

Who Speaks for Protestantism?

Before I begin, there is one problem to be aware of. Certain Protestant denominations do hold to different beliefs on different things. Some believe Baptism to be necessary and others believe it to be merely a symbol for example. Since there is not a universal arbitration as Catholics have, I will not be able to point to one definition and say “This is what all Protestants hold.” So the question is: What makes up a position which is representative?

90%? 75%? 50%+1? The largest plurality?  How representative of Protestantism is Fundamentalism?  Evangelicalism?  Pentecostalism?  Mainline Protestantism?  Non-Denominationalism?  Any attempt to deal with one will no doubt result in people saying "They don't speak for me!"

Trying to ascertain what is widely held can be difficult indeed, and it seems that I can really do no more than to speak in the most general terms about what Protestantism believes as a whole, and when necessary discuss different offshoots of the same general term when it seems the same term is understood in different ways by different groups.

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide appear to be the two beliefs which all Protestants accept, though the firmness with which they hold it and what is understood by it seems to vary from group to group

Sources Widely Respected and Considered Informed

With this in mind, I do my best to find educated sources, not some of those odd fringe churches who make outlandish claims and wind up in the headlines or cited by atheists to "prove" how dumb Christians are.  Dialogue requires finding out how the educated member of the faithful understands the claim, and not how an uninformed individual would understand it.  I'm sure all of us have encountered fellow believers speaking in a way so embarrassing that you just want to say, "Will you shut up and stop 'helping' me?"  Also I think it would be wrong to take the understanding a teenager might have and treat it as if this is what people with a degree in theology might hold.  People do deepen in their faith over time.

I also wish to avoid things which are contentious between groups of Protestants.  It would be seen as inaccurate if I chose to apply TD Jakes' views of the Trinity and claim all Protestants believe this.  It would be inaccurate to claim that all Protestants hold to the Once Saved Always Saved view or the view of Oneness Pentecostalism.  Certainly, I have no interest in taking sides between Fundamentalist, Evangelical, Pentecostal or Mainline.

With these things in mind, I have done my best to consult works available to me which seem to be mainstream sources (which I define in opposition to obscure fringe groups), educated, and not those which are controversial between denominations.  However, this cuts both ways.  Even if there is a denominational dispute, my interest is seeing what seems to be most widely held even if a particular reader may disagree with it.

Intention to Understand what is Believed by Believers

Finally, my interests are in what believing Protestants hold and not the beliefs of those who so water down the faith that one wonders if they think Christ is anything more than a "nice guy" and a social worker.  As Christians we believe that Jesus Christ died to save us from our sins and rose again and that only through His salvific act can we reach Heaven (Yes, Catholics believe this too).

Looking for What Is Believed, Not What is "Easy to Refute"

In short, while I shall do my best to make an accurate assessment, any choices which may seem out of mainstream are not done with the intention of creating a Straw Man argument or to make Protestantism look foolish.  While some readers may disagree with the sources cited, please keep in mind this use is not done maliciously but done with good will intended.

For example, I have made reference to Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary and Nelson’s New Christian Dictionary.  Not because I think a Dictionary is something which will fully explain a belief, but because it is a source which seems to be widely respected and seems to define certain beliefs in a way which tend to be widely held.  I may choose to cite people like Luther and Calvin, when relevant to do so, because of the influence they have held among Protestants.  However, I don't intend to cite them to make them look ridiculous or evil (in the 16th and 17th century, Catholics and Protestants both expressed themselves forcefully and sometimes uncharitably).  Other cited theologians will be ones who seem to hold respect among most Protestants.

A Caveat and a Plea for Fairness

Of course, since I have clarified where I am coming from, I believe I should make this clear: The reader owes the Catholic Church the same consideration that I am trying to give to the Protestant claims.  This means considering what we actually believe and not assume that the tired old propaganda dating back to the 17th century is true.  We don't worship statues, we don't think we can earn Heaven and we don't think the Pope is God.  (Yes I have encountered all of these accusations).

Just as I am doing my best to represent accurately what Protestants believe about themselves, justice and charity requires that the reader do the same for Catholicism.

The Article Next Time

With this in mind, the next article will discuss the issues of how Catholics and Protestants view the Bible, on the meaning and implications of the Inspiration of Scripture, and try to explain why the Catholic cannot accept the idea of Sola Scriptura but does not deny the authority of Scripture in any way (See Interlude III).

Reflections on Infallibility (Article IVb): Preliminaries on Sources

The Series so Far

1. Article I
2. Article IIa
3. Article IIb
4. Article IIc
5. Interlude
6. Article IId
7. Article IIe
8. Article IIIa
9. Article IIIb
10. Interlude II
11. Article IVa
12. Interlude III

On Using Protestant Sources for Consideration

Before discussing Scripture and Sola Scriptura, which involves looking at what Protestants have to say on the subject, it seems I should first discuss my own criteria for sources I choose.  Obviously to have a true dialogue, we need to be clear on what is believed, and not take a bad argument or a misrepresentation of an argument and treat this as the best Protestantism can come up with.

Trying to Understand What They Mean, Not What I Think They Mean

While it would be tempting to take a Protestant source and give it my own interpretation and claim in a smart-aleck way that "I was taking the plain sense of what he said," this would not be a just way to interpret it.  If I take the words of an author in a way which he did not intend, I am not responding to what he in fact intended to say.  Instead I would be distorting his words. 

While it might be partially the fault of the author for not expressing himself clearly, it would be wrong of me to try to hold the author to a view he never claimed to believe.  Since I believe it is unjust to misrepresent the Catholic Church this way and have protested anti-Catholics using this tactic, it morally follows that I must not misrepresent the belief of another in this way.

Recognition that these Individuals Do Believe and are Trying to Be Faithful

One thing I want to make clear is that even though I disagree with some of their positions, I do recognize they are trying to be faithful Christians.  It is true I believe men like TD Jakes and RC Sproul make errors where they differ from the Catholic faith.  However it is also true I believe they do not hold to these errors out of obstinacy but because they believe them to be true.

Who Speaks for Protestantism?

Before I begin, there is one problem to be aware of. Certain Protestant denominations do hold to different beliefs on different things. Some believe Baptism to be necessary and others believe it to be merely a symbol for example. Since there is not a universal arbitration as Catholics have, I will not be able to point to one definition and say “This is what all Protestants hold.” So the question is: What makes up a position which is representative?

90%? 75%? 50%+1? The largest plurality?  How representative of Protestantism is Fundamentalism?  Evangelicalism?  Pentecostalism?  Mainline Protestantism?  Non-Denominationalism?  Any attempt to deal with one will no doubt result in people saying "They don't speak for me!"

Trying to ascertain what is widely held can be difficult indeed, and it seems that I can really do no more than to speak in the most general terms about what Protestantism believes as a whole, and when necessary discuss different offshoots of the same general term when it seems the same term is understood in different ways by different groups.

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide appear to be the two beliefs which all Protestants accept, though the firmness with which they hold it and what is understood by it seems to vary from group to group

Sources Widely Respected and Considered Informed

With this in mind, I do my best to find educated sources, not some of those odd fringe churches who make outlandish claims and wind up in the headlines or cited by atheists to "prove" how dumb Christians are.  Dialogue requires finding out how the educated member of the faithful understands the claim, and not how an uninformed individual would understand it.  I'm sure all of us have encountered fellow believers speaking in a way so embarrassing that you just want to say, "Will you shut up and stop 'helping' me?"  Also I think it would be wrong to take the understanding a teenager might have and treat it as if this is what people with a degree in theology might hold.  People do deepen in their faith over time.

I also wish to avoid things which are contentious between groups of Protestants.  It would be seen as inaccurate if I chose to apply TD Jakes' views of the Trinity and claim all Protestants believe this.  It would be inaccurate to claim that all Protestants hold to the Once Saved Always Saved view or the view of Oneness Pentecostalism.  Certainly, I have no interest in taking sides between Fundamentalist, Evangelical, Pentecostal or Mainline.

With these things in mind, I have done my best to consult works available to me which seem to be mainstream sources (which I define in opposition to obscure fringe groups), educated, and not those which are controversial between denominations.  However, this cuts both ways.  Even if there is a denominational dispute, my interest is seeing what seems to be most widely held even if a particular reader may disagree with it.

Intention to Understand what is Believed by Believers

Finally, my interests are in what believing Protestants hold and not the beliefs of those who so water down the faith that one wonders if they think Christ is anything more than a "nice guy" and a social worker.  As Christians we believe that Jesus Christ died to save us from our sins and rose again and that only through His salvific act can we reach Heaven (Yes, Catholics believe this too).

Looking for What Is Believed, Not What is "Easy to Refute"

In short, while I shall do my best to make an accurate assessment, any choices which may seem out of mainstream are not done with the intention of creating a Straw Man argument or to make Protestantism look foolish.  While some readers may disagree with the sources cited, please keep in mind this use is not done maliciously but done with good will intended.

For example, I have made reference to Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary and Nelson’s New Christian Dictionary.  Not because I think a Dictionary is something which will fully explain a belief, but because it is a source which seems to be widely respected and seems to define certain beliefs in a way which tend to be widely held.  I may choose to cite people like Luther and Calvin, when relevant to do so, because of the influence they have held among Protestants.  However, I don't intend to cite them to make them look ridiculous or evil (in the 16th and 17th century, Catholics and Protestants both expressed themselves forcefully and sometimes uncharitably).  Other cited theologians will be ones who seem to hold respect among most Protestants.

A Caveat and a Plea for Fairness

Of course, since I have clarified where I am coming from, I believe I should make this clear: The reader owes the Catholic Church the same consideration that I am trying to give to the Protestant claims.  This means considering what we actually believe and not assume that the tired old propaganda dating back to the 17th century is true.  We don't worship statues, we don't think we can earn Heaven and we don't think the Pope is God.  (Yes I have encountered all of these accusations).

Just as I am doing my best to represent accurately what Protestants believe about themselves, justice and charity requires that the reader do the same for Catholicism.

The Article Next Time

With this in mind, the next article will discuss the issues of how Catholics and Protestants view the Bible, on the meaning and implications of the Inspiration of Scripture, and try to explain why the Catholic cannot accept the idea of Sola Scriptura but does not deny the authority of Scripture in any way (See Interlude III).

Thoughts on Infallibility (Interlude III): What the Catholic Church Believes About Scripture

The Series so Far

1. Article I
2. Article IIa
3. Article IIb
4. Article IIc
5. Interlude
6. Article IId
7. Article IIe
8. Article IIIa
9. Article IIIb
10. Interlude II
11. Article IVa

As I work my way through various Protestant Sources to make sure I understand Sola Scriptura, I have noticed one troubling trend which appears constantly: The misstating of what educated Catholics believe about Scripture.

Now of course it is one thing to understand but reject the Catholic understanding of Scripture.  It is entirely another thing to misrepresent what Catholics believe, knowingly or not.  To pass on what one knows to be false, or to pass on false statements without verifying if they are true is to bear false witness.

Ultimately God is the one who will judge the level of culpability of those who bear false witness.  For the person who has no way of finding out otherwise, the degree of responsibility is far less than the person who can find out what Catholics teach on the subject but refuses to do so.

It is not my intent to declare what the level of culpability exists in an individual.  Nor do I have any idea whether a particular non-Catholic visitor to my site holds to these sorts of views.  Rather, my intention is to point out to the non-Catholic what we in fact do believe to avoid misunderstanding us and charging us wrongly.

I believe it is important to state what we believe here before moving forward because it is possible some, not knowing what we do believe, may take the rejection of the Protestant view as a denial of the Inspiration and authority of Scripture.

The Catholic Views on Scripture in the Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say on the Inspiration of Scripture:

101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men."⁶³

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:⁶⁴

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.⁶⁵

103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.⁶⁶

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God".⁶⁷ "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."⁶⁸

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

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."⁷¹

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

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living".⁷³ If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."⁷⁴

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.⁷⁵

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

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.⁷⁸

112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.⁷⁹

The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.⁸⁰

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).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.⁸² By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

She also exhorts the faithful to read the Scriptures:

131 "And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life."¹⁰⁹ Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."¹¹⁰

132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."¹¹¹

133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.¹¹²

I hope this citation makes clear what Catholics do in fact believe about Scripture against any claims to the contrary.

Thoughts on Infallibility (Interlude III): What the Catholic Church Believes About Scripture

The Series so Far

1. Article I
2. Article IIa
3. Article IIb
4. Article IIc
5. Interlude
6. Article IId
7. Article IIe
8. Article IIIa
9. Article IIIb
10. Interlude II
11. Article IVa

As I work my way through various Protestant Sources to make sure I understand Sola Scriptura, I have noticed one troubling trend which appears constantly: The misstating of what educated Catholics believe about Scripture.

Now of course it is one thing to understand but reject the Catholic understanding of Scripture.  It is entirely another thing to misrepresent what Catholics believe, knowingly or not.  To pass on what one knows to be false, or to pass on false statements without verifying if they are true is to bear false witness.

Ultimately God is the one who will judge the level of culpability of those who bear false witness.  For the person who has no way of finding out otherwise, the degree of responsibility is far less than the person who can find out what Catholics teach on the subject but refuses to do so.

It is not my intent to declare what the level of culpability exists in an individual.  Nor do I have any idea whether a particular non-Catholic visitor to my site holds to these sorts of views.  Rather, my intention is to point out to the non-Catholic what we in fact do believe to avoid misunderstanding us and charging us wrongly.

I believe it is important to state what we believe here before moving forward because it is possible some, not knowing what we do believe, may take the rejection of the Protestant view as a denial of the Inspiration and authority of Scripture.

The Catholic Views on Scripture in the Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say on the Inspiration of Scripture:

101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men."⁶³

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:⁶⁴

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.⁶⁵

103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.⁶⁶

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God".⁶⁷ "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."⁶⁸

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

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."⁷¹

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

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living".⁷³ If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."⁷⁴

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.⁷⁵

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

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.⁷⁸

112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.⁷⁹

The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.⁸⁰

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).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.⁸² By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

She also exhorts the faithful to read the Scriptures:

131 "And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life."¹⁰⁹ Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."¹¹⁰

132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."¹¹¹

133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.¹¹²

I hope this citation makes clear what Catholics do in fact believe about Scripture against any claims to the contrary.

Thoughts on Primacy and Infallibility (Article IVa): Preliminaries on What Divides Catholics and Protestants

(Those who read the earlier version of Article IIIb may have expected this to be article IIIc. I decided to make it IVa simply because it is a different topic from the topic of infallibility in article IIIa and IIIb).

Preliminary Notes

Of course a topic like this will invoke strong feelings.  Whether Catholic or Protestant, those who practice their faith out of devotion (as opposed to a "meh, whatever" attitude of indifference) belong because they believe their teachings to be true.  Of course, Catholicism and Protestantism cannot both be true.

If Protestantism is true, then it means that Catholicism added to the teachings of the Christian faith.  However, if Catholicism is true, then it means that Protestantism subtracted from the teachings of the Christian faith.

I would ask the reader to remember I am not writing this as an "in your face" attack on non-Catholic Christians.  Rather, I seek to demonstrate why Catholics do not recognize the concept of sola scriptura as part of the teaching of Christ.

Introduction

Of course the entire subject of the disputes between Catholics and Protestants are too large to deal with in one article — or even a series of articles.  The focus of this article is to lay down some pitfalls to avoid.  We need to avoid the use of logical fallacies and we need to realize what is under dispute.  I have certainly seen internet debates where Catholic and Protestant spoke past each other because they did not realize they used the same terms in different ways leading to each side accusing the other of being obstinate.

Argument from Ignorance is a Fallacy

One thing essential to remember is that the argument that "[X] is not mentioned in the Bible,  Therefore it was added later," is an argument from ignorance.  The argument from ignorance basically makes an assumption that because a thing was not said it means it is not true.  Alternately, some have used it to say that since there is no argument against the view it must be true.

Neither view is correct.  No logical conclusion can be drawn from nothing (no knowledge).  Rather we need to see what sort of evidence exists for a belief.  Now in the court of law, the defendant is assumed innocent until proven guilty.  This means that the burden of proof is on one side, while the other side merely has to show why the prosecution cannot prove his case.

However, in discussions where the truth is being sought, both sides need to present their justifications, and we cannot accept the assumption that because one side has failed to present their case that the other side must automatically be true.

The fact that Scripture does not say a thing neither proves a thing nor disproves a thing.  One must recognize that there can be other reasons for not speaking on a topic.  For example, Paul speaking on circumcision in his epistles may find the topic of primacy irrelevant to the point he wishes to make.

This is important to remember because often debates over religious beliefs boil down to claiming "your side isn't mentioned in [X].  Therefore it is false."  Because of this, we must recognize that accepting or denying a belief cannot be based on this sort of reasoning.

Assumptions and Sola Scriptura

This leads us into the next issue of concern, and that is the issue of assumptions and interpretations.  What one holds to be true may in fact be true whether or not the individual can explain himself in a logical way or not.  However, if one wants to convince another, there needs to be some sort of acceptance of the premise between two parties.  If both parties do not accept something, then it is this issue which needs to be established before continuing.  This is why Christians of different denominations do not begin their disputes with the question of whether God exists.  Since both believe this to be true, they do not need to start here.  On the other hand, a Christian and an atheist debating would need to be starting somewhere closer to the question of "does God exist?"  (The precise spot would depend on what sort of beliefs the atheist had about the idea of what we can know, whether we can know truth and so on).

Failure to start at the point of difference will result in nothing more than a waste of time, as both sides talk past each other.

In terms of Church authority and Sola Scriptura, the difference is not over whether Catholics believe the Bible to be inspired.  We do believe this to be true.  The key area of difference is over the authority to interpret Scripture.  If a Protestant says "Catholicism cannot be true, for the Catholic Church teaches [X] and the Bible clearly forbids [X]," the Catholic will rightly want to know on what authority the Protestant can interpret Scripture in a binding fashion on this subject.  Likewise, the Protestant who hears that the Church has defined something infallibly will generally reject it because they do not believe the Pope has this authority.

Thus, the true issue between Catholic and Protestant is Who has the authority to interpret what is and is not authentically Christian.

Anyone who has been paying attention to this series so far will realize I have done my best to demonstrate the basis on which the Catholic believes in the teaching authority of the Church, though any failure is due to my own lack of ability and not that of the Church.  The non-Catholic may not believe in the Catholic authority to interpret Scripture in a binding manner, but they cannot deny we do accept the authority of Scripture in holding this view.

Conclusion

Now, we need to look at Sola Scriptura and the basis for holding it, and why a Catholic does not accept the premise.  In doing so, I hope to clear up some misconceptions on what Catholics do believe.  Thus I will look at the claims of sola scriptura and do my best to find a representative view of what it means in light of the differences between some denominations on the subject.