As I explained, this latest series is based largely upon continuing conversations with a friend named Scott who is a Roman Catholic. My husband and his friend Paul are former Catholics who are trying to help Scott understand why they are longer Catholics. In doing so, they have discovered many areas of agreement and quite a few, critical, areas of disagreement. They asked me to do some of the research for them and my efforts are reflected in these articles.

The first area of critical disagreement that exists between Roman Catholics and non-Catholic Christians is in the area of authority. Behavior among God’s people is defined by doctrinal beliefs rooted in some source of authority. The question of authority is the foundation of any religious system. Roman Catholicism and Protestant Christianity first and fundamentally divide around the question of authority. The doctrinal differences that separate the two arise from the distinctive voices of authority which underpin them.

Protestant Christianity contends that the Scriptures are the sole source of authority for the believer--hence, sola scriptura, or, Scripture alone as authoritative. Sola scriptura (along with sola fide--faith alone) was the rallying cry of the Reformers as they realized anew that the Bible alone is vested with absolute authority. It is the only sure guide for the believer’s faith and life. Protestant belief in the Bible as the single source of authority results in the subordination of all beliefs and practices to the Bible. Beliefs and practices counter to the Scriptures are expected to be discarded and replaced by those which are clearly Biblical.

Every religious movement that develops some unity and continues to live has its traditions, which tend to synopsis the beliefs, thinking, practices and rules of the group, particularly as these are expressed in its doctrinal standards and forms of government. This provides stability to the movement and provides a way to hand on that religious system to the next generation.

Protestant Christians do not reject all tradition, but make judicious use of it in so far as it accords with Scripture and is founded on truth. For instance, most Protestants treat with respect and study with care the confessions and council pronouncements of the various churches, particularly those of the ancient church and of Reformation days. We also give careful attention to the confessions and council decisions of present-day churches, scrutinizing most carefully of course those of the denomination to which we belong. We do not, however, give any church the right to formulate new doctrine or to make decisions contrary to the teaching of Scripture. The history of the church at large shows all too clearly that church leaders and church councils can and do make mistakes, some of them quite serious. Consequently their decisions should have no authority except as they are based on Scripture.

Protestants keep these standards strictly subordinate to Scripture, so they are ever ready to re-examine them. We insist that in church life Scripture is primary and denominational standards are subordinate or secondary. Protestant churches use their traditions with one controlling caution: they continually ask if this or that aspect of their belief and practice is true to the Bible. We test every statement of tradition to that standard and should be willing to change any element that fails to meet that test.

Faithfulness to the Bible is a believer’s weapon against costly spiritual compromise and error. Faithfulness to Scripture translates into faithfulness to God in Christian life.

In contrast to the Protestant position of sola scriptura, Roman Catholicism finds its source of authority in three areas: the Bible, Tradition, and the teaching authority of the Church, or the Magisterium. Roman Catholic documents state:

Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out of the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move toward the same goal. Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and by 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. Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence.

Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church. By adhering to it the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers (cf. Acts 2:42 Greek). So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.

But 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.

It is clear, therefore, that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.   (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, no. 9 & 10). All Vatican II quotations used here are taken from Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Austin Flannery, ed., (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992). Why? Because my friend Paul loaned it to me.

Roman authority resides, then, in the “Word of God” as the source and the teaching office of the Church as interpreter. These two must walk hand-in-hand, according to Roman Catholic doctrine.

Roman Catholicism embraces the inspiration of the Scriptures.

In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God.” [Note the lower case “w” in “the word of God.”] “In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.”  (Catechism of the Catholic Church, (Ligouri, MO: Ligouri Publications, 1994), no. 104, quoting DV 21 & 24.)

Catholics believe that God is the author of Sacred Scripture:

“The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.” (Ibid., no. 105, quoting DV 11).

Roman Catholicism’s Bible differs, however, from the Bible used by non-Catholics. The Roman Catholic Bible contains the Apocrypha--books contained in the LXX (Greek Old Testament or Septuagint) but not contained in the Hebrew Scriptures. The early church and the Reformers questioned the authority of the Apocryphal books on the basis of their absence from the Hebrew Canon. “Jerome (d. A.D. 420) declared as apocryphal all those writings which stood outside the Hebrew Canon, but in his Vulgate Version he included them according to church practice, though not without some reservations.” (R. K. Harrison, Article on the Apocrypha in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Merrill C. Tenny, ed., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975).  Jerome’s Latin Vulgate was declared Rome’s official Bible at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing so, it was therefore canonized by the Catholic Church. The Latin Vulgate Version alone was recognized as authentic by the Catholic Church.

The Vatican Council of 1870 [Vatican I] reaffirmed the declaration of the Council of Trent that “these books of the Old Testament and New Testament are to be received as sacred and canonical, in their integrity, with all their parts, as they are enumerated in the decree of the said council, and are contained in the ancient Latin edition of the Vulgate.”

In 1590 Sixtus V issued an edition of the Vulgate which he declared to be final, prohibiting under an anathema the publication of any new editions following unless they should be exactly like that one. However, he died soon after; scholars found numerous errors in his edition, so two years later a new edition was published under pope Clement VIII; that is the one in general use today. (I thought anathemas were similar to Paul’s use of the word, which meant absolutely forbidden and God-cursed, but the RCC may have a more subtle definition that allows people to lift the ban of a pope after he’s died. I dunno.)

The Roman Catholic Douay version of the Bible (New Testament, 1582, and Old Testament, 1609), which was apparently translated under that anathema, was translated from the Latin Vulgate, as were the Roman Catholic translations into modern languages. Rome’s centuries-old reverence for the Vulgate meant that Catholic translations of the Bible were only translations of translations rather than translations of the oldest Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Advances in the quality of the original texts gained by the process of textual criticism did not benefit Rome. (The same could be said for the KJV-only crowd).

The Church seems to have shifted in its position toward the Vulgate according to Vatican II documents.

“...suitable and correct translations are [to be] made into various languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books.” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, no. 22).

The Reformers’ commitment to sola scriptura was met with many assaults by the Roman Church. They were sometimes over-zealous in protecting their theology from potential incursions of tradition. The following illustrates the unusual extremes to which they were willing to go to defend sola scriptura.

The Hebrew alphabet originally consisted of consonants. Until the age of the Masoretes (around AD 520 onward), few of the vowels had any written notation. By then, Hebrew was falling into disuse as people became increasingly less conversant with it. Visible representations of the vowel sounds in the Hebrew Old Testament had become a necessary crutch. The Masoretes did not invent the vowel sounds, but “received” them as part of their tradition: what they did was add signs or “points” to the text as visible representations of the traditional vowel sounds. This “pointed" Masoretic Hebrew text became the text that the Reformers relied on, and is still the text on which virtually all modern Protestant translations are based.

Some of the Reformers’ successors found themselves embarrassed by these Hebrew points. The Catholics had their “ancient and vulgate edition which had been translated from the Hebrew prior to the addition of the vowel points and certified as authentic by the magisterium of the church.  The points were simply scribal tradition--something that had been handed down.  “Sola scriptura, indeed!” the Catholics insisted. The reformed churches had less certainty than Rome for the base of their translations!

Some of the Reformers were uncomfortable with this seeming dilemma, and undertook to argue that the points, far from being of recent, man-made origin, had always existed alongside the consonantal letters and were equally inspired by God. The climax of this was reached in 1675 when the Helvetic Consensus Formula provided that no man should be licensed to preach the Gospel without first professing his belief in the divine inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points!! (Adapted from Tradition Old and New by F.F. Bruce, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), pp. 160-161.)

It is healthy to acknowledge that both sides have been dogmatic to the point of idiocy at times.

Historically, the Roman Catholic Church has forbidden the free use of the Bible by the laity and even among the lower orders of priests. The Council of Trent reaffirmed the earlier Council of Valencia (1229) with the following:

In as much as it is manifest, from experience, that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to everyone, the temerity of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it; it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops, or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety, they apprehend, will be augmented, and not injured by it; and this permission they must have in writing. (Loraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1962, p. 97, quoting Council of Trent.)

In the interest of paralleling Roman Catholicism with Protestant theology, it seems to me that this is an attempt to prevent “regular” Christians from knowing the will of God. This would be fine if churchmen were completely pure of heart and without any agenda other than to disseminate the actual Word of God, but that would disqualify most of the human race from being churchmen. Unfortunately, we all have agendas and we bring those to our interpretation of the Bible or we, sadly, twist the Bible itself to fit our agenda. Yet, how are Christians to know when their spiritual leaders have led them into heresy if they cannot read the Bible for themselves?

It should be noted that history does show that where ever people have had the ability to read the Bible in their own language, they have frequently found disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church; in this, the Council of Trent was correct.

Boettner added: Such was the teaching and practice of the Roman Church for centuries. For one to possess or read the Bible in his native tongue without permission in writing from his superior and under the watchful eye of the bishop was a mortal sin, for which absolution could not be granted until the book was delivered to the priest. (Ibid., p. 99).

The Church has recently shifted its position regarding the use of the Bible. Vatican II encouraged Bible study among the laity:

“Access to sacred Scripture ought to be wide open to the Christian faithful.” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, no. 22.)

and later,  “...all clerics, particularly priests of Christ and others who, as deacons or catechists, are officially engaged in the ministry of the Word, should immerse themselves in the Scriptures by constant sacred reading and diligent study.

“Likewise, the sacred Synod forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful, especially those who live the religious life, to learn “the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 3:8) by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.” Therefore, let them go gladly to the sacred text itself....” (Ibid., no. 25.)

Webster defines tradition as “the process of handing down information, opinions, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example....” Tradition in Catholic theology is that which has been handed down from the apostles.

“Christ the Lord...commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel.... This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline. This was faithfully done: it was done by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received--whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit....

In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them “their own position of teaching authority.”

Thus, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time. Hence, the apostles, in handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to maintain the traditions which they had learned either by word of mouth or by letter....” (Ibid., nos. 7 and 8).

The Catechism adds, “This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life, and worship perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.

“The sayings of the Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 78.)

Roman Catholic Tradition is the apostles’ preaching, example, and institutions passed down through their successor bishops, expressed in the life of the Church. This Tradition is said to be living in that the Holy Spirit maintains the continuity of the unwritten, apostolic Gospel in the Church, and provides growth in insight into the Tradition through its expression in the lives and worship of the faithful.

Catholic theologian Avery Dulles explained, “It had become common, especially since the Counter-Reformation, to think of tradition objectively, as a collection of truths communicated to the apostles and preserved in the church. Without rejecting this notion, contemporary Catholicism shows a deeper awareness that tradition cannot be adequately understood as a body of explicit teaching. Many doctrines are contained in a merely implicit way in tradition considered as an activity or process whereby faith is expressed and transmitted.” (Avery Dulles, Faith and Revelation in Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, Francis Schussler Fiorenza and John P. Galvin, eds., (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), p. 121.)

As indicated here, Tradition is not simply a body of truths, but is a “process whereby faith is expressed and transmitted.” The expression of the Roman Catholic faith collectively by the faithful continually elucidates the Tradition in such a way that previously unseen elements of its content become less obscure. Through this process, insight into the Tradition grows:

“The Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress in the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism [sic] of truth. Thus, as the centuries go by, the Church is always advancing towards the plenitude of divine truth, until eventually the words of God are fulfilled in her.” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, no. 8.)

McCarthy commented about this growth in insight:  “Since what the Church does reflects what the Church believes, the universal practice of the Church is also considered a reliable witness to the Roman Catholic faith.” (James G. McCarthy, The Gospel According to Rome, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), p. 298.)

Catholic theology holds that no further revelation is to be expected prior to the return of Christ. The sacred deposit is complete, though not yet fully understood. The significance of the Word of God will be increasingly understood over the course of time:

“...no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 66.)

Boettner added, “...the Roman Church...denies that it formulates any new doctrines at all. Rather it insists that in ex cathedra pronouncements the Holy Spirit enables the pope to draw out and proclaim what belonged to the original revelation.” (Boettner, 80.)

The sacred deposit, Scripture and Tradition, were entrusted by the apostles to the whole Church. The responsibility for interpreting the sacred deposit, however, lies with the Magisterium--the bishops headed by the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. The bishops and the Pope are formally considered to be the apostles’ successors.

“This sacred synod [Vatican II], following in the steps of the First Vatican Council, teaches and declares with it that Jesus Christ, the eternal pastor, set up the holy Church by entrusting the apostles with their mission as he himself had been sent by the Father (cf. Jn. 20:21). He willed that their successors, the bishops namely, should be the shepherds in his Church until the end of the world. In order that the episcopate itself, however, might be one and undivided he put Peter at the head of the other apostles, and in him he set up a lasting and visible source and foundation of the unity both of faith and communion. This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful, and, proceeding undeviatingly with this same undertaking, it proposes to proclaim publicly and enunciate clearly the doctrine concerning bishops, successors of the apostles, who together with Peter’s successor, the Vicar of Christ and the visible head of the whole Church, direct the house of the living God.” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 18.)

“That divine mission [the spread of the Gospel], which was committed by Christ to the apostles, is destined to last until the end of the world (cf. Mt. 28:20), since the Gospel, which they were charged to hand on, is, for the Church, the principle of all its life for all time. For that very reason the apostles were careful to appoint successors in this hierarchically constituted society.” (Ibid. no. 20.)

“In order to fulfill such exalted functions [those ecclesiastical functions of the bishops], the apostles were endowed by Christ with a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit coming from them (cf. Acts 1:8; 2:4; Jn. 20:22-23), and, by the imposition of hands (cf. 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6-7), they passed on to their auxiliaries the gift of the Spirit, which is transmitted down to our day through episcopal consecration.” (Ibid. no. 21.)

Hence, the Roman Catholic Church is said to be apostolic “because she is founded on the apostles,” and “continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles...through their successors.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 857.)

Roman Catholic theology does not see the Church has greater than the Scriptures, but sees the interpretation of Scripture as the sole duty of the Magisterium of the Church – the hierarchy:

“...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. Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, no. 10.)

The task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. Avery Dulles added, “Since revelation is public, the church requires a way of publicly proclaiming the doctrine that expresses or safeguards that revelation. Catholics find evidence in the New Testament that Christ commissioned Peter and the apostles with the responsibility of overseeing the life and witness of the church. The pope and the other bishops are regarded as successors, respectively, of Peter and the other apostles. One of their most important tasks is to keep the church in the truth of the Gospel by proclaiming sound doctrine and condemning doctrinal deviations. In this function the hierarchy constitutes the church’s official teaching body, or magisterium.” (Avery Dulles, p. 123.)

The magisterium consists of the bishops and the pope working in concert as a group.  The Pope, which is a word not found in the Bible, but comes from a Latin term meaning father, is the Bishop of Rome and the head of the Roman Catholic Church. According to Boettner, at his coronation, the Pope is triple crowned as the Father of Princes and Kings, Ruler of the World, and Vicar of our Savior Jesus Christ.  Later documents (i.e. Vatican II) emphasize the Pope’s title as Vicar of Christ and his supreme ecclesiastical authority:

“...the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.

“The Lord made Peter alone the rock-foundation and the holder of the keys of the Church (cf. Mt. 16:18-19), and constituted him shepherd of his whole flock (cf. Jn. 21:15 ff.). It is clear, however, that the office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter (Mt. 16:19), was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head (Mt. 18:18; 28:16-20).”  (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 22.)

According to the Catechism, “the ‘power of the keys’ designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ The power to ‘bind and loose’ connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 553.)

The infallibility of the Pope has already been mentioned above. Vatican II addressed papal infallibility, which extends to the college of bishops when they exercise the supreme Magisterium:

“The Roman Pontiff...enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful...he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. For that reason his definitions are said to be irreformable [sic] by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, in as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal. For in such a case the Roman Pontiff does not utter a pronouncement as a private person, but rather does he expound and defend the teaching of the Catholic faith as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the Church’s charism [sic] of infallibility is present in a singular way.” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 25.)

Dulles further explained, “When Catholics speak of the infallibility of the Magisterium they mean that in certain specified acts the popes and bishops, teaching doctrine concerning faith and morals in a way that binds the whole church, are divinely protected from falling into error. ...the pope can teach infallibly when, in his capacity as successor of Peter (ex cathedra), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine to be held by all the faithful on the basis of divine revelation.” (Avery Dulles, p. 124.)

As I said, Protestants and Roman Catholics can find a great deal to agree upon as we discuss our differing systems. For example, both of us are agreed that God exists and that He has made Himself known to mankind through Jesus Christ and both of us embrace the central belief that Jesus is fully God, revealing the Biblical concept that theologians have entitled Trinity.

We agree that the Bible is divinely inspired by God and is useful learning about God. Both of us believe that apostles were divinely appointed by Jesus to bring the gospel to mankind.

Where we separate, however, prove to be critical junctures.  Protestants see authority for what we believe as being solidly grounded in God’s written word which never changes. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that tradition is a living support for the written word and, although they give lip service to the equality of the Bible against tradition, it might be noted that where the Bible and tradition differ, the Roman Catholic always falls back to interpretation by the Magisterium, which inevitably supports Tradition over the Bible. We are left with a conundrum. Believe the Bible or believe often extremely-divergent interpretation that seems to come from a man.

For Protestants, this is not possible, because we recognize all men as fallible and we also recognize that in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, there have been popes who proved to be extremely fallible even as they were making ex cathedra pronouncements. The issue of the Office of Peter has already been discussed at length.

I think what it comes down to for many Roman Catholics, Scott included, is the feeling that non-Catholics are in rebellion to the authority of the Catholic Church. However, for Protestants, it comes down to the issue of whose authority ought Christians to be under. Should be we under the direct authority of God Himself or under the secondary authority of a man who in many historical instances appeared to live his life in rebellion to the clear words of Scripture and in many other instances, lived in rebellion to the standards of his own sect (how many popes fathered illegitimate children, in defiance of a vow of chastity?). Protestants do not consider ourselves as outside the authority of God, but actually much closer to that authority because we are personally beholding to God. We have no mediator but Jesus Christ, Who is God incarnate.

Yet it is this differing view of authority that is the first and insurmountable division among Protestants and Roman Catholics.