Sola Scriptura, the Magisteriium, and Papal Infallibility

My dear Catholic friend,


I want to approach the whole matter of Sola Scriptura, the Magisteriium, and Papal Infallibility with integrity. History, I find, however is malleable to prejudicial causes. To quote a mutually favorite author “… it is false to say that the Church is founded on Scripture does not justify the counter-assertion that Scripture is founded on the Church.” (The Theology of Barth: Balthazar; p.14)


I fully understand the revanchist attitude of certain Catholic polemicist; however, unless men are willing to dialogue on both sides of the isle with civility and appreciation for another’s point of view, I think we are simply talking to the wind. Authority based on a particular interpretation of a verse of Scripture does not seem to me, at least, to justify superiority to the source of that verification. Why appeal to Scripture at all for the authenticity of such authority, if the final word rest with an infallible Pope anyway?


“All Scripture,” we believe, “is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:15-17 So, what is the primary function of the Church or the Pope if it is not to firstly affirm Scripture? So, in my opinion, the turf of the dialogue is the Scripture, and therefore, doctrinal and theological in nature.


Why should I, or anyone else acquiesce to Papal coercion, or ecclesiastic theological conceit when I, in good conscience, can not find Scriptural grounds for such submission?


Reinhold Niebuhr, writing of the need for coercion in the cause of justice, once warned that: "Moral reason must learn how to make coercion its ally without running the risk of a Pyrrhic victory . . ." We, too, as Protestants have a hugh stake in contending for the faith that was passed down to the saints once and for all. (Jude 1:3) If our voice is not heard, then the Catholic Church will be the lesser for it.


Furthermore, I should note that as was pointed out in the Humani geneis, the Magisteriium of the Catholic Church singled out dangers and errors of our time, which among other possibilities could influence an ecumenical dialogue. They are:


     1.) a false irenicism in dogmatics and
     2.) a contempt for the rational and philosophical moment in theology.


So, this brings us back to square one, which is precisely, the apologetical problem. I do not fine Rome "all right" and Protestism "all wrong"—one can only pray for a Hardian mea maxima culpa in such instances. I therefore find it interesting, and somewhat incongruous that in light of this intransigence, Balthazar would write, speaking of Protestants, “They still dwell in the same precincts of faith in the same Christ and are rooted and established in the same baptism. Their faith is still a trust in the same revelation; their object of faith is still the same. Hence our dialogue proceeds within the range of this faith. It is a common fides seeking intellectus in common. (The Theology of Barth: Balthazar; p.18)


It has never been my intention to contort sola scriptura into something that it is not. It is, however, an infallible standard of which the Church should, I believe, joyfully embrace. When, on the other hand, men differ, we must as individuals in good conscience consider those differences in light of Scripture, which the Church in Ecumenical session has reaffirmed over and over again. Christ did not say, “Peter, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against you.” No, He said, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church—and, as far as I am concerned that Church must sync in all aspects with Holy Scripture which is the only unchangeable repository of our faith. Christ, himself, as a believer, accepted that standard. God forbid, if the High Priest of that era had had the final say.


Now, the problem, or difficulty, or whatever, you want to call it, comes in accepting the standard for a New Testament canon. However, to quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia: “The canon, [was] already implicitly present in the apostolic age, gradually became explicit through a number of providential factors forming and fixing it.”


In line with this statement, I, too, believe that the New Testament canon was already implicitly present in the apostolic age as a doctrinal deposit of God given certainty. It is when the church exceeds these parameter, that I become nervous. Not against the councils that affirmed it, but with those who exercise superiority over this deposit of apostolic faith.


As early as the seventeenth century the Reformed theologian Francis Turretin noted the serious theological divisions in the Roman church and asked why the pope did not settle these disputes if his office was so effective. (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1, trans. by George Musgrave Giger, ed. by James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P & R, 1992) p. 156) And, of course, as I have stated elsewhere, even the ex cathedral pronouncements of the Pope must be interpreted.


Further, as, Dr. W. Robert Godfrey has noted, “The modern state of the Roman church really has shown that the institution of the papacy has not made clear the necessary content of Christian truth. I suspect that every honest member of the Roman church will have to acknowledge that.”


So, then, what advantage does the Pope have over Scripture? None, in my opinion, except to affirm it. And, I would say the same of tradition.


Far be it from us that we should substitute the of sola ecclesia and/or sola traditionem for the surety of sola scriptura.


Let us, however much we may disagree, continue the dialogue. For as Yves Congar has noted, "Heresy [if I am heretic or my position is considered such] is for theology both an ocassion for progress and a danger tempting it to become one-sided." And, it the case of the Roman Catholic Church, I believe, with all due respect, it has become one-sided, substituting Papal authority for the clear authority of the Scripture.