A priest I know, responding to my A Great and Glorious, But Debated, Assumption, sent one observation worth sharing both as an addition to the argument and an illustration of the difficulties of ecumenical exchanges, for those who care. ”I would make one observation,” he wrote.
And I think it is more substantive than a simple matter of words. You state in your article that, “The first two I understand, and respect, because they follow clearly from Protestant commitments to the supremacy of Scripture . . .”.
Now I am certain that what you mean is that they follow from the Protestant’s commitment to some form of sola scriptura; but I think that needs to be stated more clearly—made more specific. And the reason is this: we as Catholics affirm Prima Scriptura within the larger context of Tradition. And in that sense we would be able to affirm the “supremacy of Scripture”. It’s a matter of clarity, I suppose. But I do think it is important enough to be noticed.
It’s a helpful explanation of the Catholic teaching. It’s also a good illustration of why ecumenical relations can be so difficult. By “Protestant commitments,” I meant what Protestants (the traditional ones, that is) believe about Scripture, but — as my astute friend recognized — the term could and would be taken to mean that Catholics don’t have so high a view of Scripture.
But the Catholic high view and the Protestant high view differ substantially. Explaining this would have required adding a paragraph or two that wasn’t relevant to the article, and might have seemed defensive, and adding a qualification like “as they understand it” would have seemed snippy or patronizing. And I was writing under a deadline so went with the shorter way of putting it.
In my experience in writing on and talking about these differences, this is always the challenge you face: either speak in short form and risk being misunderstood or explain and risk sounding defensive or aggressive. Charity is needed, simply as a kind of interpretive instrument, or as a way of making sure your interpretive instruments interpret correctly.
August 19th, 2011 | 3:01 pm
I know it’s probably a vulgar over-simplification, and I’m not getting the point of the original article, and so on. But I can’t get away from the following equation:
Sola scriptura as “supremacy of scripture”
PLUS the clause:
“as every Protestant separately interprets it”
EQUALS:
thousands and thousands of denominations, all claiming that they maintain the “supremacy of scripture” alone.
If this equation is mistaken, I really would appreciate correction.
August 20th, 2011 | 11:51 am
Let me as a Catholic state that the public writing Catholics are simply praising their position a wee bit too much when it comes to honoring Scripture. Read section 74 of Casti Connubii, Pius XI, 1930 first section:
74. “The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal…”
Pius wrote that because he was actually paying attention to six NT passages on wifely obedience. Now, do an experiment. Search the family related sections of Vatican II and of the Catechism of the Catholic Church for an iota, a fragment, a nano reference to wifely obedience. There are none because publicity-media Catholicism ( post widespread TV use…1950′s forward) is shaping it’s image to be politically incorrect as to gay actions and birth control…but…BUT…. politically correct vis a vis the liberal mass media on two continents as to wifely non subjection (by omission) and on the death penalty which is quite Scriptural ( for Gentile rulers, see Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:3-4).
Until Catholicism actually preaches wifely obedience again as Pius XI did and drops the death penalty pacifism of the last two Popes
(each has called it “cruel” despite their own ccc#2267 and despite God repeatedly giving it by command in Scripture), then be careful of by rote Catholic declarations of how Scriptural we are…that’s a memorized documentlike position…the party line of some clergy and others. In reality it is spotty and priests can’t really say that out loud though many may vent in private.
Lastly go to section 80 of “Splendor of the Truth” where Pope John Paul II calls slavery an intrinsic evil. It’s unfortunate when primitive economies etc demand it but it can’t be intrinsic evil if God gave it to the Jews. Slavery, the “bad”
kind…chattel, is given by God in Leviticus to the
Jews:
Lev 25:44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you.
Lev 25:45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property.
Lev 25:46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness.
Nomadic cultures without prisons inter alia had slavery instead….hence the allowed harshness in the Bible for their treatment…”a rod for the back of fools”.
Slavery is awful but not an intrinsic evil. Intrinsic evil means bad in every situation without exception.
Catholicism’s documents assign Scripture it’s proper place…that is what your priest commenter is reciting. But the living breathing extant Church does not follow that perfection as the dissonance between Pius XI and the post 1950 imaging Church shows just on wifely obedience.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact