In the final analysis it seems to me we have only two choices in matters of authority: we either take ourselves as the measure of all things, or we take some external authority.When we say that we take the Bible as our authority, in reality we don’t. The Bible does not interpret itself, and the first Christians did not even know it existed – by Scripture they understood what we call the Old Testament. If the Bible cannot tell us what books should be in it, or what the New Testament books are, then it seems unwise to assume that it interprets itself for us. In fact it was not until relatively modern times that men imagined it could do so. That is not to say that the head as no part in our faith, but it is to say that for the Catholics and the Orthodox, one’s own reason has been only a part of the way we apprehend what God wants from us: the second is the heart, through prayer, and the the third is the external authority of the Church which Christ founded.
There is a natural desire in us for certainty, but that is to be had only by personal infallibility. If we believe our own reading of Scripture is inspired, then we shall believe in our own reading, even if we attribute it to the Holy Spirit. But for those who ask with the Ethiopian, ‘how shall be we know what it means unless someone shall teach us?” – then we know we need guidance. That comes in a variety of forms. Prayer before reading Scripture seldom goes unrewarded, and good commentaries are a great aid too. But what to do if one’s own reading and the commentaries do not quite square up? That is where the authority of the Church is invaluable.
One of the many half-truths which emerge from those convinced of their own infallible reading of the Bible, is that the Catholic Church discourages people from reading the Bible. That is not so. What the does is to encourage us to read the Bible within the tradition which produced it. It is perfectly possible to read the Bible by the light of one’s own authority and go badly astray. Arius read ‘only-begotten Son’ to mean that Jesus was a separate, created being, and that is certainly a reading which one can adopt and defend, just as one can adopt and defend the reading preferred by Athanasius; how are we to know which reading is correct? Well, for an Orthodox or Catholic Christian, the answer is plain – by the authority of the Church.
Thus, one’s own reasoned reading might, or might not, lead one to an orthodox position; the same is true of the promptings of the heart, but only the balance of all three elements – head, heart and Church – can lead one to a secure rock. This is not least because the only other real hermeneutical tool is the spirit of the one’s own age. The fact is that no one reads Scripture in a vacuum. You either read it influenced by the intellectual fashions of your own age, or you read it in the tradition of the Church.
An excellent piece C. The authority of the Church is foundational to our formation; it is the underpinnings of our spiritual edifice that keeps the entire structure tied to the Rock, Christ. Without that certainty, we would all build our faith wherever we reasonably thought; more often built on sand rather than Rock. Though reason, as your piece indicates can certainly be the first movement of God in man to identify the need for an authority and then to accept that authority because it is reasonable; being demonstrated by tradition and by Scripture.
After all, religion is the handmaid of a man’s spiritual life. Were it not for our ability, through reason, to ascertain where or what to build our spiritual edifice upon, we are likely to build our spiritual lives upon the shifting sands rather than the Rock. The heart is higher than than the mind and the spirit is higher than the governing laws. But try to build a skyscraper without the use of mathematics and a blueprint and you are likely to end up with a pile of rubble instead of a spiritual edifice that brings glory to God while elevating our minds and hearts to serve Him in the building thereof.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Mary. Only our pure and white catholic church knows what the bible means.Mary, would you ask the magisterium to write it all down so I can see what they came up with? That’s fine that they know all the secrets, but they should let me in on it. Thank you Mary.
LikeLike
that keeps the entire structure tied to the Rock, Christ.
Er eh, as a catholic in good standing, I feel it my duty to correct you on this, my dear brother. Peter is the Rock. He is the foundation of the Holy One true Universal Apostolic pure and white church.
Thank you Mary
LikeLike
Christ is the eternal rock. You just failed catechesis 101. Go back and repeat the module.
LikeLike
I failed? Oh Mary, whats wrong with me? is it because I used to be a protestant?
LikeLike
You must repeat your study of Module 2. Please do so by this Sunday:
Module 2: Christ is the Rock and Peter is the Rock – Catholicism 101
Finally, we come to our original difficulty: How can it be that Peter is the foundation and rock of the Church, when we know that the one foundation of the Church is Jesus Christ her Lord? If Jesus is the Rock, how can Peter also be the Rock?
To understand this point, we must know something of primary and secondary causality – which is precisely what the protestant reforms did not understand. It is possible for an action to be completed by two agents who are full and perfect authors of the single action, so long as the two agents do not operate on the same level of causality. Thus, we are able to have a primary cause which is the cause of an action and also a secondary cause which is also the cause of the same action.
Consider an analogy: If a man writes a word with a pencil and we ask, “Who/what wrote this?” We would be correct to say that the pencil wrote it and also to say that the man wrote it. And it is not that the man wrote part and the pencil wrote part, but the man wrote the whole and the pencil wrote the whole – and yet only one thing was written and there was only one act of writing.
Similarly, we may claim that the human authors of the Scriptures were true authors, while also maintaining that God is the primary author of the Bible. The individual men were secondary causes, but God was the primary cause – hence, there was only one thing written and only one act of writing; though both God and the individuals were true authors.
Now, we turn to the case of the foundation of the Church: Christ is the Rock in the sense of primary causality, but Peter is the Rock according to secondary causality. As St. Matthew is the author of a book which has God as its primary author, so too we assert that St. Peter is the foundation of the Church which has Christ as its primary foundation.
When Christ our Savior gave Simon the name Peter, he communicated a share in his own name and mission. As Peter is strengthened by Christ’s strength, there is no danger in affirming that Peter is the rock and foundation of the Church while also affirming that her sole foundation is the one Rock which is Christ the Lord.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, thanks my brother. I was wondering if some fellow catholic was going to clear that up for me. 2 Rocks. something like I told the police…….officer, I didn’t shoot my wife….my gun shot my wife.
LikeLike
Did that work for you? I have a feeling they didn’t fall for that one.
LikeLike
They were catholic, so they fell for it. thank you Mary
LikeLike
Servus, good job.
LikeLike
For extra credit you can read the entire article by Father Ryan and the excellent comments as well. 🙂
http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/08/if-christ-is-rock-can-peter-also-be.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
VATICAN CITY (AP) — A Holocaust-denying Catholic bishop who made headlines in 2009 when Pope Benedict XVI rehabilitated him and members of his breakaway traditionalist society is heading for new trouble with the Vatican.
(We rehabilitated them by having them sit in a monestary with their hands folded in prayer for 6 months)
Bishop Richard Williamson is planning to consecrate a new bishop Thursday in Brazil without Pope Francis’ consent — a church crime punishable by excommunication
(oh come on guys, we can punish crimes better than that.Whats the CC turned into? A bunch of lilly liverd sap suckers? Lets burn them at the stake)
http://news.yahoo.com/holocaust-denying-bishop-makes-waves-again-consecration-153313019.html
LikeLike
The fact is that no one reads Scripture in a vacuum. You either read it influenced by the intellectual fashions of your own age, or you read it in the tradition of the Church.
Yes I think commentary helps a great deal and as far as our own age we should try to understand NT in the way of the very early Christians knowing the historical milieu of that age.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I ran across this, from Joseph Bottom this morning, and think it appropriate here.
“Protestantism always ran a hazard that through excess of zeal its doctrine might be perverted to erroneous conclusions. Unsophisticated laymen could never understand, after they had been taught that the natural mind was abysmally incompetent and that God had uttered the truth in clear and simple dicta, why they should still need ministers skilled in the sciences, in rhetoric, logic, and physics, in order to hear and comprehend the explicit word of God. They argued with a naïve plausibility that since regeneration infused God’s own substance into the elect, then a regenerated man thereafter required no other mentor than the Holy Ghost, no other instruction than its ever-present promptings…”
Which is one of the reasons that I continue to move toward the more traditional/conservative/whatever version of Lutheranism. Because this tendency lead to far too much comfort with compromise, if it is not checked.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Seems we are thinking of the old self ordained country preacher here not the PhD level ministers of today’s mainstream Protestant denominations.
“no other mentor than the Holy Ghost, no other instruction than its ever-present promptings…” This is not acceptable for denominational ordination or for a congregation as both much more sophisticated to accept the uneducated clergy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think the old country preachers, who were fairly humble men, tended to orthodoxy, unlike many pf today’s PhDs, who think tthey’re smater than anybody, ever was.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I see that is also true. But I’d like to have my guy to know some history, a tiny touch of Greek and and a coupla commentary texts and bios of divines more than Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
I can see that, as desiderata.
LikeLike
Quite so Neo.
We need to exercise our reason, and we cannot opt out of that, any more than we can opt out of feeling things. But unless they are held in tension by some greater authority, we run the risk of making ourselves infallible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree, It’s one of those areas if you’re sure you’re right, most likely youre wrong. After all Arius was a brilliant man.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quite so – some of these people are so sharp they cut themselves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed so, and so badly their blood covers the page.
LikeLiked by 1 person
C, good job. Have you ever thought of teaching for a living?
LikeLike