One of the central doctrines of the Reformation is “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture Alone). It means that only the Bible, not any pope, bishop, priest, preacher or teacher, is given final authority. Accordingly, the Church has authority to teach only what is taught in Scripture, or is a strict and simple logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture. The Catholic Church does accept the authority of Scripture, but not Scripture alone. It believes Church tradition, as mediated through the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Bishops and Pope) is also authoritative.
Coren’s argument is primarily the traditional one. The Church (the Old Testament people of God, and the Catholic Church of the New Testament) existed before the Bible and, in fact, it was through this Church that the Bible came into being. Therefore, it makes no sense to place the authority of the Bible above that of the church. Interesting point, both logical and defensible. He also points out that non-Catholics are divided into a multitude of competing denominations, while the Catholic Church has remained united. This point is somewhat less convincing as he also complains throughout the book about the many “so-called Catholic” factions and individuals who cause division by promoting heretical teaching within the church. Unity, for all of us, is a transient thing, a moving target, an ethereal goal.
Everyone agrees, of course that the Bible is, in a sense, a product of the Church, and is best understood within the Church community. But the fact is, the church is not, and, arguably, has never been a monolithic institution with a unified magisterium and one body of tradition. There may certainly be truths in extra-biblical Church tradition, but for about seventeen centuries the Bible has been the only body of teaching we all agree on, and even there the Catholic Church embraces several books as scripture that others reject. Authority, like unity, is a tricky thing, has always been, and will surely continue to be.
As a result of this division concerning authority, we find the Catholic Church embraces several doctrines and practices that non-Catholic churches reject. Most non-Catholic Christians would see these as peripheral matters, but they do constitute a series of stumbling-blocks that make working together more like running a three legged race than competing as a pairs figure-skating team. A few such doctrines are listed below:
Transubstantiation – This is the belief that, at the words of consecration, the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ, though all of the appearances of bread and wine remain. Protestants generally regard the bread and wine of Communion as metaphorically or symbolically the body and blood of Christ. One might be forgiven for not appreciating the significance of the theological distinction, but it’s the practical consequences that are problematic.
It is commonly and erroneously alleged that Catholics worship saints and statues; they do not. But the bread of Communion has become an object of worship in the Catholic Church. It is invested with power, paraded in the streets, and when Catholics 
genuflect (go down on one knee) as they move about the church sanctuary, it is done in worship of Christ in the bread on the altar. Protestants generally consider these pagan and offensive practices.
This doctrine also results in a very practical division of the Church. Those who do not accept the doctrine of transubstantiation are not welcome to receive Communion in the Catholic Church, and Communion services conducted by pastors who are not Catholic priests are considered empty gestures as compared the Catholic real thing. None of this is done to be mean. It’s just a consequence of disagreement.
The infallibility of the Pope – This is not, as some have imagined, that the Pope is perfect and never makes mistakes. The Catholic Church has always acknowledged that there have been bad Popes who made awful mistakes, indeed, who sinned terribly. What Papal Infallibility means is that, when he speaks ex cathedra (in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians), declaring that a doctrine on faith or morals is to be believed by the whole Church, God will preserve him from error.
Coren argues that, though it was infallibly proclaimed as late as 1870, it has been believed from at least the third century. He cites considerable evidence for this, but all it really indicates is that bad ideas have been around forever.
Besides being unbiblical, infallibility, whether of popes, preachers, teachers, or the bible itself, is nothing but a problem. It never really settles a disagreement, except for those who are lazy or have never discovered the joy of arguing. And, by making dissent on a particular matter an offence, it vilifies dissenters, and kills what otherwise might be a very constructive discussion. And, besides all this, it makes it virtually impossible to admit a mistake. It’s a bit like driving a car with no reverse gear. Cars are all about moving forward of course, but sometimes even that requires a little backing up.
No comments:
Post a Comment