The differences between evangelicals and Catholics on the question of ultimate authority really isn’t all that different, argues Kevin DeYoung, since tradition still requires interpretation:
One of the common Catholic objections to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is that without the Church to offer authoritative interpretations we are all just left with our own personal readings of Scripture. So, the argument goes, evangelicals may talk a big game about the Bible being our ultimate authority, but actually the final authority rests with each individual interpretation of Scripture. In light of this chaotic free-for-all, consider how much better is the Catholic understanding of authoritative Tradition with a capital T.
[. . .]
I respect Catholic theology for its intellectual history, its commitment to doctrinal precision, and for the many places it promotes historic orthodoxy. But I do not see how an appeal to authoritative church tradition, in its practical outworking, makes the interpretation of Scripture any more settled. In my experience, what it does is push the boundaries of the debate away from Scripture out to papal encyclicals and the like. This is fine to do as a means for establishing what Catholics have believed about Christian doctrine (much like I don’t think it’s a waste of time for Presbyterians to discuss the Westminster Confession of Faith). But here’s my point: just because you have an authoritative tradition doesn’t mean you won’t argue over the interpretation of that tradition.
Read the rest and then come back and let me know what you think. Naturally, I side with DeYoung (we evangelicals have to stick together) but I’m interested in hearing the counter-arguments.
February 17th, 2011 | 9:12 am
Well the Pope has a pulpit with which to protect himself from false interpretation, where as the Bible itself (in terms of its physical, temporal manifestation) is powerless.
On the other hand, if we all believe the Holy Spirit is guiding our interpretation, who are we to say the Holy Spirit is limited to guiding the faith through the Pope …
February 17th, 2011 | 9:18 am
Joe,
Two quick thoughts:
1) One major difference is that we Catholics have a pope — or his successor — alive to tell you whether he meant what you interpreted him as meaning. So, for instance, you can interpret scripture to mean X. And scripture will never tell you that it means “not-X.” But a Pope can guide any debate by clarifying when he sees a misinterpretation of an encyclical or a bull or even of scripture occurring.
2) History I think indicates that protestant self-interpretation occurs more often and about more important things than does Catholic self-interpretation; it does not just shift the debate as DeYoung says. What I mean by that is: 16th century aside, new Protestant churches come from old Protestant churches, not the Catholic church. It seems that there must be something helpfully authoritative going on to prevent schisms like the ones that happen in Protestant churches.
February 17th, 2011 | 9:31 am
While there may be many and widely varying interpretations of an papal encyclical, it is the encyclical itself which is authoritative. To be Catholic is to recognize that authority over and above one’s personal interpretation.
February 17th, 2011 | 10:12 am
This seems like more of a reaction against a particular sort of Catholic Apologetics that doesn’t represent real Catholic thought (though I have no doubt that it is the thought of some real Catholics). Catholic theology schools teach bible interpretation and at least my professors emphasized the interpretation of doctrine alongside it. The general principle is that every act of understanding is an act of interpretation.
The true argument, when it comes to authority, is that a Catholic values Tradition as sacred, and values formal, visible unity with the church. This doesn’t mean Catholic opinion is homogenous – we gleefully enjoy wide freedom in interpretation – but it does mean in the exercise of interpretation, we have placed ourselves at a discussion table with 2000 years of saints, with the bishops (and at their head the Pope) at the head as living moderators.
February 17th, 2011 | 10:13 am
What I mean by that is: 16th century aside, new Protestant churches come from old Protestant churches, not the Catholic church.
And why exactly should we leave the 16th century aside? Or, for that matter, the Cathars of the 11th century, or the Hussites of the 15th century?
Perhaps we should remember the essential argument of the Reformers: the authority the Catholic Church invested in the Magisterium did not prevent the Church from falling into severe doctrinal and practical error in the late Medieval / early modern era.
This was partly because, as Mr. DeYoung rightly argues, there was nothing to stop a very wide variety of interpretations of Catholic doctrine from proliferating throughout Christendom. It proved quite easy for someone like John Tetzel to achieve fantastic success promulgating what Catholics all now recognize was a severe distortion of the Church’s teachings.
February 17th, 2011 | 10:15 am
The question posed here misses the point by misstating the Catholic position, which is not that authority resides in Scripture and Tradition, but rather in Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. The authoritative interpretation of both Scripture and Tradition belongs to the Church’s teaching Magisterium, not to theology professors, bloggers, or social justice activists. So much for the parallels between Evangelicalism and Catholicism.
DeYoung further obfuscates the issue by conflating doctrinal authority with prudential judgment on practical matters, but it’s all rather beside the point.
February 17th, 2011 | 10:38 am
thomas,
I’m not sure that answers a question. Substitute “Evangelical” for “Catholic” and “Bible” for “encyclical” and you’re right back to where we started.
February 17th, 2011 | 10:38 am
Is Catholicism just as much a mishmash of traditions as Protestantism? But it seems to me that if you look at Protestants and Catholics who believe in the authority of scripture; and you then compare the Catholics who actually believe in the authority of Tradition and the magisterium to Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura, which group has more theological variation?
There are certainly areas in which the Catholic Church hasn’t spoken in a definitive way, like on the particular details of a just immigration policy. But for the most part, in terms of what is actually a matter of revelation, there is general agreement among those Catholics who accept the authority of the Church. Ecumenical councils can step in if there is a critical controversy, and Catholic-Catholics know where to turn for the answer. If I want to call The Protestants, who do I call?
Of course, any sort of argument like this must be in the service of the bottom-line question: what kind of arrangement did God set up? Does God only speak to us through Scripture and our prayers, or does God also guide the Church, and if so, how? He could have ordained it however He wanted. Is theological unity evidence of one particular arrangement?
February 17th, 2011 | 10:54 am
actually, this discussion reminded me of how free Catholics actually are. The Church insists on the big issues: Trinity, Incarnation, Sacraments, Scripture but leaves us free on the fine points. The Church does have infallibilty but it is, to paraphrase Benedict talking to Italian priests, ‘rarely used’.
The Church rarely insists on one interpretation only of one line of scripture.
John XXIII quoted the old Latin proverb ‘in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas’ englished as ‘on necessary points unity, on dubious ones freedom, in all things love.
February 17th, 2011 | 10:58 am
TimC,
but the “encyclical” has, itself, an authority with regard to it’s own interpretation of the “Bible” that is lacking from your or my interpretation of Bible or encyclical. Hence, it is not just a shifting of the interpretive issue onto different ground.
February 17th, 2011 | 11:16 am
Many of the interpretations advanced are attempts to extend the plain words of a papal teaching by necessary inference or by analogy. This is particularly so, on moral questions, when proceeding from general principles to particular cases.
Bear in mind, too, that the teaching office of the pope is confined to questions of faith and morals and no catholic is obliged to accept his views on matters of economic theory, political organization, or similar questions, which may be involved in the practical application of moral principles.
Finally, many papal pronouncements, especially in matters of morality, are more in the nature of warnings, condemning particular propostitions as “rash,” “offensive to pious ears,” “scandalous and pernicious in practice,” or the like, rather than advancing a positive teaching. They are intended to draw boundaries, rather than to stifle debate.
Even in their (rare) infallible pronouncements, popes and councils are not inspired, but protected from error. It is a negative charism.
That said, as both Jim F and Chris have pointed out, the more egregious interpretations are always open to further, authoritative clarification.
February 17th, 2011 | 12:50 pm
One other difference that I would note with regard to authority is that when a Catholic rejects a reading of Scripture as infallibly defined by the Church (such as the perpetual virginity of Mary), that person is acting against authoritative Catholic teaching. There is no other authoritative Catholic option. By contrast, a Protestant who rejects a reading of Scripture as defined by whatever interpretation he currently subscribes to is not acting AGAINST anything because there is no authority against which to act. He is simply switching interpretative options or creating a new one.
February 17th, 2011 | 12:56 pm
It’s true. The difference is that when you disagree with the Pope the Pope is able to clarify how wrong you are whereas the Scriptures can’t clarify to you and others why you are wrong. Of course many people continue to “misinterpret” the Pope to their own liking, but the more the Pope clarifies the more they look like stubborn fools. Also, it’s not just the Pope, it’s the Church Fathers and previous Popes along with the current Papacy that is a living person capable of addressing misinterpretations.
February 17th, 2011 | 12:58 pm
I would have to side with the Catholics who have responded here. I don’t think DeYoung actually understands how the magisterium works. His example about immigration is a red herring because the topic really concerns the application of magisterial teaching.
Secondly, he links magisterial teaching to papal encyclicals without recognizing that those encyclicals themselves must be weighed in a larger context.
However, and here is where Catholics need to help, I have heard a number of different explanations about how to understand magisterial teachings. For example, it’s clear that all the councils deemed ecumenical by the Catholic Church are magisterial teaching and thus are infallible. It is also clear that papal documents (which include more than encyclicals) represent “authoritative” interpretations of infallible teachings. But the encyclicals themselves are not necessarily infallible, and they do not have to be affirmed in the same way that Trent and Vatican II must be unless the pope is speaking “ex cathedra,” which is extremely rare and the exact number of instances are up for debate.
Another layer of the onion is that papal documents that are taken up into conciliar decrees thereby do become infallible (at least the statements cited).
Regardless, DeYoung does not seem to get that there is a theological center of infallible teaching within the Catholic Church as primarily expressed in and through its conciliar decrees. This Tradition serves as the infallible interpretation of scripture insofar as the Holy Spirit continues to guide the church into all truth.
Once you move beyond the conciliar decrees, you are moving into the diverse sources of authority within Catholicism and papal teachings are at the top of the food chain in terms of offering an authoritative guide to the conciliar tradition of the church.
Finally, you cannot simply cherry pick a couple of Catholic theologians without at least acknowledging the rich Catholic exegetical tradition that spans the entirety of the history of Christianity, including contemporary Catholic biblical scholars like Luke Timothy Johnson.
It is only among Protestants that you get the impression sometimes that sola scriptura means everyone has to re-invent the wheel insofar as everyone has to approach scripture with a “fresh” set of eyes and interpretive lenses rather than building upon what has come before. I know DeYoung does not really believe this, but his blog has it as an undertone. When he points out that the Catholic scholars he cites do not mention scripture, he fails to see how the Catholic exegetical tradition might be informing them in the way that an evangelical exegetical tradition is informing him. Is it not enough to merely affirm Gordon Fee’s work? Must I now as an evangelical go back and re-exegete all of Paul?
February 17th, 2011 | 1:07 pm
“Just because you have an authoritative tradition doesn’t mean you won’t argue over the interpretation of that tradition.”
But we Catholics have a Magisterium who tells when you are wrong with your interpretation: this makes all the difference in the world.
And you can see from their reactions that most people understand very well what the Church is authoritatively saying.
Of course, the point is that you are not ready to acknowledge that the faith in God entails an authoritative Church.
February 17th, 2011 | 1:15 pm
Without detracting from some of the other comments, I’d offer the following: Whose interpretation is to be taken more seriously? Were I a 4th or 5th century Christian, I might have my own interpretation of what the Bible and the early Christians taught about the liturgy, but I would take more seriously what the bishops said, especially if it contradicted my own interpretation. Moving along, one can say the same about the Virginity of Mary, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and so forth.
Thus, the ultimate public expression of doctrine — the liturgy — is not something that even priests may alter, and in general one does not see priests or laypeople doing so outside of means allowed for variation. In Protestant tradition, the liturgy has seen repeated revolutions at the local level. If Catholics felt the individual’s interpretation was as authoritative as any other’s, I’d expect to see the same liturgical variety as Sunday Mass that I see in Protestant churches.
February 17th, 2011 | 1:39 pm
Thanks for the DeYoung article, Joe. I especially liked the distinction between sola and solo scriptura. If the popular mind often confuses papal infallibility with the pope never being wrong, the popular mind also often confuses sola scriptura with solo.
This latter confusion is seen in a number of comments posted by Catholics on this thread. Erin, for example, says that a Protestant who rejects an interpretation “is not acting AGAINST anything because there is no authority against which to act.” All Protestants recognize a teaching authority located in some governance structure, whether it is episcopal, presbyterian, congregational, or even the pastor of a non-denominational church.
Catholics often romanticize the tradition of the Magisterium, believing in a continuity that simply isn’t there. Any close study of church history reveals that most of what we think is fixed and eternal has been up for grabs in some way or another. Even issues that are quite settled—the divinity of Christ, Christian opposition to divorce—are attended by lots of ambiguity of interpretation, which is why Christians have, since the beginning, split off into different groups with different emphases and traditions, which themselves are constantly changing.
Above all this change and confusion stands Christ himself, who issued a few simple directives and left the rest for us to sort out as best we can.
February 17th, 2011 | 4:03 pm
1. it seems clear to me that every form of communication requires interpretation. no word, no letter, no book, no art form, no image, and no speech can be considered to be immune from interpretation without doing violence to the meaning of the term “communication.” which means even authoritative magisterial pronouncements require interpretation if they are to be understood.
ergo, mr. deyoung is correct. but so what?
2. even when i was reformed, i was never fully convinced that scriptures were perspicuous. per mr. deyoung:
“Perspictuity [sic]. We believe that the main things of the Bible–sin, salvation, Christ, man, God, faith–can be clearly understood. Our God speaks and knows how to speak. Jesus and the apostles quoted Scripture all the time as if they believed there was a meaning in the text that they could understand and others ought to have understood as well.”
one obvious problem with this claim is that whether a doctrine is part of “main things of the bible” is itself a question whose answer is not perspicuous. moreover, does mr. deyoung want to claim that “main things” such as baptism and the lord’s supper are perspicuous? if so, why all the disagreement for centuries?
February 17th, 2011 | 4:11 pm
Well, Joe, no one ever said that there is nothing for Catholics to disagree about and argue about among themselves. No Catholic from the pope on down would want that. Many protestants have the idea that “Catholics have to check their brains at the door” and have no intellectual freedom on theological matters whatever. But in fact there is plenty of room for different theological approaches within the Catholic Church.
The real question is whether the Church has the capability, when it is called for, to definitively settle a doctrinal dispute. And the answer, as far as the Catholic Church goes, is obviously yes. And I think that people (Catholic or non-Catholic) who try to persuade themselves otherwise are kidding with themselves.
The definitive settling does not take place in “papal encyclicals and the like.” It takes place in dogmatic decrees of General Councils (and much more rarely of popes acting outsise of General Councils). But even short of
dogmatic decrees, issues can be *effectively* settled. Is abortion intrinsically wrong? Is divorce and remarriage permissible? Is the Eucharist a sacrifice of Christ’s actual body and blood? Are sins remitted in baptism? Is the divine nature immutable and impassible? Can women be ordained to the priesthood? may we pray to the saints and ask their intercession. May we pray for the souls of the faithful departed? Can a person lose his salvation by committing a “mortal sin”?
These and many other questions are effectively settled questions in the Catholic Church. People may choose to be heterodox on these questions, but no one who takes the least trouble to inquire is in any doubt what the Catholic Church teaches on these questions. However, because none of these are questions that can be settled by pointing to a single clear scriptural text, serious and sincere “Bible believing” protestants can and do disagree about most of them, and there is no standard except the assertions of each side that can settle these controversies.
There are always new questions of interpretation arising. As long as people reflect on the meaning of the gospel, that will be the case. A dogmatic decree may settle an old question, but give rise to new questions of interpretation. If required, those new questions can be resolved by new decrees. Arianism raised questions about the divinity of Christ. These were settled at Nicaea and Constantinople, only to have Nestorianism and Monophysitism raise new questions about Christ’s humanity. These were settled at Ephesus and Chalcedon. And so it goes, and will ever go until Christ returns in glory.
Many a time I have been in doubt as to what the Catholic Church’s teaching is on some point — or whether it has definite a teaching. But as Casey Stengel used to often say, “you can look it up” — in fact, very easily and quickly. As I accept the doctrinal authority of the Church, that has helped me very much. It has given me guideposts. I don’t have to work out everything from scratch.
February 17th, 2011 | 4:24 pm
A clarification: As to the list of examples of things that are “settled doctrine” in the Catholic Church, I may have given the impression that these have merely been *effectively* settled. Actually almost all of the things on the list have been definitively settled by dogmatic decrees. The immorality of abortion and the impossibility of ordaining women have not been the subject of dogmatic decrees, but have nevertheless been effectively settled.
February 17th, 2011 | 5:15 pm
Stephen,
But in practice, “definitively settled” means one or more of three things: settled terms, doctrinally settled for now, or allowing for a comfortable or contentious range of practices.
So yes, Catholics know that abortion has always been understood as intrinsically wrong, though the terminology of “intrinsic” is a recent innovation. And Catholics legitimately differ on what to do about the legality of abortion in a plural, democratic society. Something roughly similar happens to each of the issues on your list.
Just as you can look up Catholic teaching in a book, so too can you look up church teaching for a number of churches. Methodists, for example, can turn to the Book of Discipline.
February 17th, 2011 | 5:16 pm
[i]Perhaps we should remember the essential argument of the Reformers: the authority the Catholic Church invested in the Magisterium did not prevent the Church from falling into severe doctrinal and practical error in the late Medieval / early modern era.[/i]
“Severe error”? Such as?
[i]This was partly because, as Mr. DeYoung rightly argues, there was nothing to stop a very wide variety of interpretations of Catholic doctrine from proliferating throughout Christendom. It proved quite easy for someone like John Tetzel to achieve fantastic success promulgating what Catholics all now recognize was a severe distortion of the Church’s teachings[/i]
Tetzel was wrong. Tetzel was also unable to pronounce anything ex cathedra. I don’t see how his example proves a point.
February 18th, 2011 | 2:17 am
This goes back to Plato and the Phaedrus – the words can’t defend themselves and answer questions asked of them. People, however, can do so. Interpretation really demands conversation, not just reading. So definitive interpretation requires a conversation partner with interpretive authority. I think that’s the general line of thought.
February 18th, 2011 | 7:41 am
Catholics never defended a univocal reading of Sacred Scripture. It is the traditional division of the senses of the Bible from Thomas Aquinas (senses historical, allegorical, moral and anagogical). The question of the Pope does not arise disputes about the interpretation of particular texts of Scripture, but of the whole Christian message. Only when a particular interpretation calls into question a more general point of doctrine is that the papal authority to resolve any problems arise.
Moreover, the theological discussions on Catholicism are distinct from church authority, which is prior and superior to these same issues. Otherwise, the Church does not serve the theologian, the theologian is one who serves the Church.
Tradition (the figure of the Pope) does not mean univocal; means special protection of the Holy Spirit.
February 18th, 2011 | 8:19 am
[...] artigo surgiu em um famoso blog inglês: First Thoughts (o artigo em inglês pode ser lido aqui). Em resumo, o autor Joe Carter, protestante, comentando o texto de um outro colega protestante, [...]
February 18th, 2011 | 2:15 pm
Michael said: “All Protestants recognize a teaching authority located in some governance structure, whether it is episcopal, presbyterian, congregational, or even the pastor of a non-denominational church.”
Yes, but the ‘recognition’ of that teaching authority remains a decision that I make personally based on my ultimate evaluation of that authority’s doctrinal positions. How do I know I have judged my teacher correctly? Who’s teaching who?
I appreciated Erin’s response, and I’ll add: As a Catholic – when after study, thought and prayer I find that my conclusion is at odds with the position of the Church – I yield. And this is hardly an act of intellectual ignorance; it’s the same decision the Apostles were presented with when, on the night He was betrayed, he took bread, blessed it, and said…
February 18th, 2011 | 3:21 pm
“The differences between evangelicals and Catholics on the question of ultimate authority really isn’t all that different, argues Kevin DeYoung”
The following author would add this to the mix:
“Protestant claims are going to be intrinsically offensive to Roman Catholics. Protestants are questioning things Roman Catholics hold sacred. The only relevant question, however, is whether certain claims are true, not whether those claims offend someone’s sensibilities. In sum, while things will be said in my response that Roman Catholics will undoubtedly find offensive, I do not know of any way to avoid it completely in this discussion. I trust that Roman Catholic readers will understand that my purpose in this response is not to offend for the sake of offending but to deal with the issues.
One of the most frustrating difficulties encountered in discussions such as this is the fact that the starting assumptions of Roman Catholics and non-Roman Catholics are so different. Because these starting assumptions dramatically affect the way we read and evaluate evidence and arguments, it becomes difficult to avoid speaking past one another. For example, as I mentioned above, if one assumes the correctness of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the church, then the differences I allege between sola scriptura and solo scriptura become invisible. Likewise, if one does not assume the correctness of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the church, the differences can be discerned.
The same phenomenon occurs when it comes to discussing historical evidence for and against the claims of Rome. A person who believes that the Roman Catholic Magisterium has special divine authority naturally looks at evidence for the claims of Rome in a much different way than a person who does not believe that the Roman Catholic Magisterium has divine authority. If a person firmly believes that the Roman Magisterium is infallible (i.e. incapable of error) under certain conditions; in short, if that is his basic theological axiom, then by definition he cannot at the same time believe that there is any real evidence of error. This is the reason that for faithful Roman Catholics, the very possibility of there being evidence contradicting the claims of the Roman Church is non-existent. Any alleged evidence of error offered by Protestants or others must be explainable in some other way.
Those who do not begin with the basic theological axiom of Roman Catholicism see abundant evidence against the claims of Rome in Scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the documented events of church history. This evidence prevents them from believing that the Roman Catholic Magisterium has divine authority.”
Read the rest of this longish article: Here.
February 18th, 2011 | 4:36 pm
If we are talking about something more than a useful taxonomy for the study of comparative religion, then there is a danger of falling into tautology: “The true church is that which teaches the true faith” and “The true faith is what the true church teaches.”
One can, of course, try to set up an explicitly doctrinal test – “The true faith is contained in the three catholic creeds,” or “The true faith is that Jesus Christ is Lord,” although, if anyone objects that one’s chosen formula is too inclusive/exclusive, it is difficult to discover grounds on which to refute them.
Now, it is perfectly possible to avoid the question-begging assumption of defining Christians by examining their tenets, or the Church by its teaching. After all, the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which stands in pride of place at the beginning of the Codex of Justinian, did so very neatly, by referring to “that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness.”
Not only does it avoid the vice of circularity, but, suitably updated to refer to living authorities, it is remarkably easy of application; just what one would expect of the criterion of a divine message, intended for all, regardless of learning, capacity or circumstances.
February 19th, 2011 | 12:45 pm
JDD,
You’ree trying to make a distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism that simply doesn’t exist.
You say that if “I find that my conclusion is at odds with the position of the Church – I yield.”
The same is true for most Protestants. If my opinion differs from the Methodist Book of Discipline, I yield.
You also suggest that Protestants are somehow more individualistic. You said of Protestants that “the ‘recognition’ of that teaching authority remains a decision that I make personally based on my ultimate evaluation of that authority’s doctrinal positions.”
But this is also true of Catholics. Each Catholic has decided to be Catholic rather than something else, just as each Methodist has decided to be Methodist rather than something else.
February 20th, 2011 | 1:28 pm
[...] Carter at First Thoughts posts an article, Even One Pope has a Million Interpreters, in which he highlights Kevin DeYoung‘s analysis of the above debate from Tradition Still [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact