Baqash : To Seek

This is part 2 of “Defending Catholicism”, where I take criticisms of the Catholic Faith, and defend the Catholic Position on the topic. Today deals with Scripture, and Church Authority.

Claim 1: “A lot of specifically Catholic doctrines do not seem clearly taught in Scripture, so why should I believe them?”

Response: This question hinges on whether or not a person derives doctrine only from scripture, or if doctrine can also be determined based off of our human reason, logic, and philosophical minds; and if Tradition can also be a determining factor.

I plan on writing a dedicated article on the topic of “Sola Scriptura”, as well as how the Canon of the Bible (The collection of books) was decided, as it would impact doctrine found in scripture to some degree. Today however, I will provide a simple critique of the claim.

The important section in the claim is “clearly taught”. This would make the claim that the only beliefs that a person can clearly understand are those which we are required to believe as Christians. If someone cannot understand the Trinity, does that make it “unclear”, and therefore not essential to defining who the God of the Bible is?

If we dismiss this obvious issue, and Steel-man the claim a bit into “If traditional understanding of Scripture does not align with Catholic beliefs, why should I believe them?” – This again presents a problem: Tradition according to whom? Protestant tradition is only 500 years old, though some like to claim there was a “remnant” throughout the 1500 years that the Catholic Church was essentially the only Christian Community minus the Eastern Orthodox communities after the Schism. Even protestants must acknowledge that the writings of Clement, Ignatius, Iranaeus, Polycarp, and others, are VERY Catholic. See my Articles on the Eucharist, the Pope, and Mary. Because of this, we can establish a group which seems to hold to the traditional understandings of Scripture – Being the Catholic Church.

Claim 2: “Catholicism places too much authority in tradition and the Church, instead of just letting Scripture speak for itself.”

Response: This too, deals with similar problems to the above question. I do not subscribe to the idea that Doctrine ONLY comes from explicit mention in scripture. I do not need it to tell me outright that “God is a Trinity: One being, Three Distinct Persons” for me to be required to believe it. The doctrine is a requirement for the Christian Faith, even though many can not effectively articulate the idea. The same, being for the interplay between Faith and Works in regards to salvation. If not rightly understood, one could easily go down a “Cheap Grace” view, as well as a pure “works” view. This is how the Church defines its use of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, to determine doctrine.

CCC 80-87: “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”…Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”…”And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching…The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome“

Claim 3:“Why should I accept papal authority when the early Church did not look like later Roman Catholicism?”

Response: I would have to strongly disagree, with the premise of this question. The early church looked very much like the Catholic Church (Roman or not). I would directly refer the reader to a previous article which deals specifically with the early church, it’s writers and leaders, and how they described the structure and authority in the church. That article is found HERE. Keep in mind- These writings are the only writings from the early church we had. One cannot dismiss them and say simply “Well, those are Catholics!”. Of course they are. No one outside of the Catholic church would affirm the Catholic position…if they weren’t Catholic. The ONLY writings we have from these periods are those which are very clearly…Catholic in nature.

Claim 4: “Nowhere is Peter listed as being in Rome with Paul.“

Response: This, is a particularly absurd claim. Perhaps it is meaning to say “Nowhere in scripture is Peter described as being in Rome with Paul”…but even then, we deal with the first two claims. Do I need scripture to tell me explicitly about something for me to believe it to be true? Clearly not. I believe Water is H2O. The Bible doesn’t tell me that.

There is unanimous consensus amongst scholars and historians throughout church history which states that Peter was Martyred upside down on a cross in Rome. 1 Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, Origen, Eusibius. Peter Died in Rome and was the Bishop of Rome

Tertullian “ Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! Where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile!” Eusibius “For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome…And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself…Thus publicly announcing himself as the first among God’s chief enemies, he was led on to the slaughter of the apostles. It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day.” Ignatius Letter to Romans “I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.”