THE TRUTH OF THE

CATHOLIC FAITH

"I would not believe in the Gospels were it not

for the authority of the Catholic Church."

—St. Augustine (354-430 AD)

Against Sola Scriptura

Sola Scriptura is the notion that the Bible is the sole rule of Christian faith. Many faith-filled people accept this erroneous doctrine simply because they have been told it is true, without rigorously investigating it for themselves. Unfortunately, many of these same "Bible Christians" then criticize Catholics for accepting both the Bible and the Sacred Tradition as divinely inspired rules of faith. The truth is that the Bible is the Word of God, but that the Word of God is Jesus, and He is not limited to the Bible alone.

No one can believe in the Bible alone because the Bible itself says not to believe in the Bible alone . . .

The Bible does claim and contain divine revelation. 2 Timothy 3:16 states, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." And John 20:31 declares, "So much has been written down, that you may learn to believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and so believing find life through his name" (see also Lk 1:3-4, Rom 15:4, Gal 1:11-12, 1 Jn 1:4). However, these passages do not contend that the Bible is the only rule of faith, nor do they discount Sacred Tradition.

In Fact, the Bible clearly states that, "Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book" and that, "there are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written" (Jn 20:30; 21:25). 2 Jn 1:12 and 3 Jn 1:13-14 also reveal that much more was also left out of the Bible simply because some Apostles did not like to write: "Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face so that our joy may be complete." God even commanded the author of the Book of Revelation not to write some things down in the Bible: "When the seven thunders had spoken, I was about to write it down; but I heard a voice from heaven say, "Seal up what the seven thunders have spoken, but do not write it down" (Rev 10:4).

Peter, the "Rock" upon whom Christ built the Catholic Church (Mt 16:18), further testifies that "in them [the Scriptures] there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures" (2 Pet 3:15). That is precisely why Peter exhorted "there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation" (2 Pet 1:20).

The Bible clearly, then, does not contain all of the Word of God. Furthermore, it empowers the Catholic Church to be its interpreter. The Bible says the "Church" is "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15). Matthew 16:18-19—"upon this rock I will build my church"—also shows the fundamental importance of the Church. Christ didn’t say, "upon this rock I will write the New Testament." 2 Thessalonians 2:15 further asserts that sacred "tradition" is as important as scripture and this fact is backed up by Acts 15:27, 2 Cor 3:3, and 2 Tim 2:2. Finally, Jesus Christ makes absolutely no sense in Matthew 18:17 if a true institutional church does not exist. Matthew 18:17 reads: "If he [a person who sins against you] refuses to listen to them, tell the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector." It does not read, "take all disputes to the Bible," even though the Bible can be used to settle many disputes. Now, which church is Christ referring to in Matthew 18:17? The Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopal, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Eastern Orthodox, Mormon, Jehova Witness, Worldwide Church of God, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, or other? None of them existed in the entire first millennium AD, and most didn’t exist until the last couple centuries. Some people wrongly challenge the Sacred Tradition by citing Rev 22:19 (see also Gal 1:9). "I warn everyone" it reads, "who hears the words of this prophetic book: if anyone adds to them, God will add the plagues described in this book, if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and the holy city described in this book." Read in context, this warning pertains only to the book of Revelation. The other New Testament books were not even associated with Revelation when it was written in about 96 AD; it was not until the fourth century that Revelation was accepted by most Christians as canon.

The Historical Record Opposes Sola Scriptura

Jesus Christ did not simply hand us a bound, 27 book New Testament right before He ascended into heaven. In fact, the early Christian Church survived for decades without one word—not one word—of the New Testament written as we know it. Additionally, early Christians went almost four centuries—over 350 years!—without the books of the New Testament agreed upon and compiled like they are today! Thankfully, Christ gave Christians something else to go by other than just written words. He gave us a church. A group of followers led by the Apostles and empowered by Christ with the Holy Spirit (John 20:19-22; Acts Ch. 2; Mt 16:18; Mt 18:18). When the first twelve Apostles died, they passed their teachings and authority on to Bishops in the cities where they resided—long before the New Testament was compiled. These Catholic bishops are the justly appointed successors to the Apostles, and they passed Sacred Tradition (teaching) on, just as Catholic Bishops do today.

Instead of being handed to us directly by Christ, the New Testament was written by many different human hands (at least nine different authors and possibly up to 14), divinely inspired as they were, and compiled together by still other human hands later on. Many non-Catholic Christians, who cannot trace their institutional roots any further back than the 16^th century, like to think that the 27 books of our New Testament came about by common practice without institutional influence. They feel compelled to believe that because only the Roman Catholic Church, as an institution, can trace its roots back to Christ, and they don’t want to recognize the authority of the Catholic Church. But for centuries the Christians debated what books were really inspired, and there is absolutely no evidence to show that even one person accepted the same exact 27 books—and only those books—we accept today before 367 AD! St. Athanasius, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Alexandria, was the first person to compile the New Testament as we know it in his Festal, or Easter Epistle, in 367 AD. But even then it was not yet definitive.

In fact, it was not until after the Roman Synod, convoked by Pope Damasus (382 AD), the Catholic Council of Hippo (393 AD), and the First Catholic Council of Carthage (397 AD) that the New Testament was firmly established. Only then did people begin to recognize the same exact 27 books as canon. The decisions were then reaffirmed by Pope Innocent I in 405 AD, finally by the Pope Boniface I and the Second Catholic Council of Carthage in 419 AD, after which time there was no significant dispute.

The Council of Hippo rejected many more books than it accepted, which goes to prove people had a lot of different ideas at the time about what belonged in the Bible. Before Hippo, Christians generally accepted Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the Pauline Epistles to be canon, but most of the other New Testament books were hotly contended. Many early Christians also accepted books other than today’s 27 New Testament books to be canon. These included the Didache, The Shepherd of Hermas, and many others, and only scholars usually use these books today. Their content is not, in many cases, much different than works our 27 New Testament works, further proving that the New Testament books were not simply commonly recognized as inspired—it took an institutional decision by Christ’s church!

If the Roman Catholic Church does not have the Apostolic priesthood power granted to it by Christ, then there is no way we can be sure we have the right 27 books today. If you accept the New Testament as it stands, then you accept the authority of the Roman Catholic Bishops. The only alternative is to blindly believe that out of the millions of books that have been written about Jesus Christ to date, all Christians just happen to agree that the same 27 books, and no others, are the completely inspired words of God.

The following chart illustrates the fact that it is the Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which gave authority to the Bible. This does not diminish the value of the Bible, but it does show that the authority of the Church is just as important, and that the Church antedates the Bible.

All Dates AD

A: Jesus of Nazareth born probably between 7-4 BC.

B: Jesus Christ ascends into heaven 33 years later.

C: First book in the Bible written about 50 AD. Possibly Galatians
and/or Thessolonians and/or Hebrews.

D: Mark, the first Gospel written, is completed just before the
Jerusalem temple falls in 69 AD.

E: The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are completed probably
between 70-80 AD. John was probably written in the 90s.

F: The book of Revelation written by this date—possibly the last book
written.

G: All New Testament books written by this time (Jude, for example,
may have been written between 100-150 AD).

H: The Gospels and Epistles of Paul generally accepted as canon.

The Marion heresy (c. 140), spurs on the movement for the
Church to definitively recognize scripture in the early centuries.

I: St. Athanasius becomes the first person ever to propose the exact
27 New Testament as Canon

J: The 27 books are affirmed by the Pope and Church Councils:
The Roman Synod convoked by Pope Damasus (382 AD); the Council of Hippo (393 AD);
the First Council of Carthage (397 AD); Pope Innocent I’s
letter to Bishop Exsuperius of Toulouse (405 AD).

K: Pope St. Boniface I and the Second Catholic Council of Carthage
solidify the New Testament

It took as much divine inspiration for the Catholic Popes and Councils to determine what should go in the Bible as it took inspiration to write it. Only an infallible institution can present a work such as the Bible as infallible. As St. Augustine (354-430 AD) said: "I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church."

In addition to establishing the New Testament, Catholics defended the Scriptures, to the death at times, against persecutions by certain Roman Emperors, and against the barbarians who conquered the Roman Empire in the fifth century. Catholics used the Bible to convert these same barbarian tribes over the next few centuries. In the Middle Ages thousands of Monks spent their entire lives copying Bibles by hand. Furthermore, Gutenberg, the inventor of the first printing press in about 1450 AD, was a Roman Catholic. Thus, the first book ever printed with a machine was a Bible, in the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate translation, in about 1453—long before the Protestant Reformation! By the time of Luther’s split in 1517, the Catholic Church had sponsored well over 124 printed editions, with many translations in German, Italian, French, Bohemian, Flemish, and Russian.

Nobody really even practices Sola Scriptura

Perhaps the best reason not to accept Sola Scriptura is this: NOBODY practices it. If the Bible was the sole rule of faith then the only thing a preacher would be allowed to do in Church is get up, read the scriptures word for word, and dismiss the crowd. For what could a human being offer as insight that the "sole rule of faith" does not? But every minister says a verse and then talks about it, with his own words, and then brings up another verse and talks about it. Is he going against Revelations 22:18-19, Galatians 1:9, and 1 Corinthians 4:6 by adding to the words of the Gospel or not? If not, then he’s merely doing what the Pope and Ecumenical Councils do and admit to doing—they are a medium for the Holy Spirit to speak. The only difference is that the non-Catholic minister is not a direct successor to the Apostles while the Current Pope is the 264^th direct successor to St. Peter. Finally, why does one "Bible" preacher disagree so heavily with the "Bible" preacher down the street? They’re all using the same Bible right? Many preachers claim to make the Bible their sole rule of faith but they don’t. What they do is make their own interpretation of the Bible the sole rule of faith. If this isn’t true then why don’t Baptists go to a Presbyterian church one week and a Pentacostal church the next? They all claim to make the Bible their sole rule of faith, but somehow they have very strong disagreements on issues of the Eucharist, Baptism, Salvation, and much more.

We simply must admit that the Bible needs an interpreter other than just ourselves. As an official Catholic document explains, "The Bible is extremely difficult to understand, even by Bible scholars. It was written in languages long dead, and in the manner and idiom of the time . . .for Catholics, the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, is the official guardian and infallible interpreter of the Bible" (Origin, Inspiration, and History of the Bible, p. 2).

Writing a century ago, Cardinal Newman put it well: "Surely then, if the revelations and lessons in the Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given to us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is idiomatic and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs obiter, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligation? Such is our natural anticipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the last three centuries, in the many countries where private judgment on the text of Scripture has prevailed. The gift of scripture requires as its complement the gift of infallibility."

Pope John Paul II also explains that dangerous consequence of Sola Scriptura or "Biblicism" is that, "the word of God is identified with Sacred Scripture alone, thus eliminating the doctrine of the Church which the Second Vatican Council stressed quite specifically. Having recalled that the word of God is present in both Scripture and Tradition, the Constitution Dei Verbum continues emphatically: "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture comprise a single sacred deposit of the word of God entrusted to the Church. Embracing this deposit and united with their pastors, the People of God remain always faithful to the teaching of the Apostles." Scripture, therefore, is not the Church’s sole point of reference. The "supreme rule of her faith" derives from the unity which the Spirit has created between the Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church in a reciprocity which means that none of the three can survive without the others.

THE ROCK

P.O. Box 218

Arvada, CO 80001-0218

www.rockofinspiration.org

"Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church" –Mt 16:18

Please copy and distribute this tract far and wide.

We’d love to hear from you too.