A Living God

The past forty-seven years, since the end of the Second Vatican Council, have seen some of the greatest ecumenical efforts in the Church in her history. This effort has especially been extended to Protestants and, more recently, the Orthodox Church, our brothers. One great sign of this ecumenical work and the success it has produced is the recent creation of the Anglican Ordinariate by Pope Benedict XVI, effectively an English Rite allowing Anglicans who wish to convert to Catholicism a smooth transition. This is one of many great accomplishments of ecumenism over the past century and even more energized since Vatican II.

While this ecumenism has produced many signs of growth and reconciliation amongst the fractured pieces of Christianity, it has also given rise to an excessive zeal for ecumenical growth, particularly among Catholics. This zeal has confused the true purpose of ecumenism - mutual growth and constructive, open dialogue - with the singular desire to bring other Christians into the Faith. While this is a noble desire, it has led many ecumenical Catholics to adopt a willingness for compromise. They are willing to sacrifice Catholic truths for the sake of ecumenical agreement, whether for the sake of conversion, peace, or some other motive. Whatever the reason, this sense of compromise has led to many errors being proliferated in the Church which have not been as thoroughly answered and dealt with as they should be.

Certain errors have been largely allowed to continue, especially by the general lay population and many academics, without a decisive correction from the faithful. I would like to address one of the most common and prominent errors resulting from an overzealous ecumenism, in the hope that Catholics can discern this error in themselves. This error can be very subtle, and the motives for accepting it can be genuine, but neither its subtlety nor the good intentions of the individual can justify the error and make wrong become right. To be healed, they must be brought into the light - this is my hope.

In this article, I would like to discuss one error resulting from ecumenical compromise I have seen growing in frequency in modern times:


Sola Scriptura

In the Reformation, one of the most defining beliefs of the Catholic Church which distinguished it from those sects of Christianity that were separating from the Church was the centrality of the Church over the Bible. Most Protestants adopted the idea of sola scriptura, or scripture alone, the belief that the Bible is the sole authority on truth, the deposit of all revelation, and sacred on par with the sacraments, if indeed the individual denomination retained any sacraments. Many Protestants even placed the Bible above all sacraments, including baptism, the most fundamental and uniting Christian sacrament. The Eucharist was demoted and the role of the preacher and the homily were elevated, particularly by the work of Martin Luther. This was done to emphasize the importance of the Bible as well as the individual relationship between believer and Bible which was the center of Protestant spirituality, and largely remains so today.

The Church has always revered the Bible. We wrote and compiled the Bible and owned it exclusively for fifteen hundred years prior to the Reformation. But the Church existed before the Bible was written - the Jewish Church preceded the Old Testament, and the Christian Church, its successor, preceded the New Testament. I can prove each of these assertions with two questions: what Bible did Abraham read? and, what New Testament did the apostles read? The Church always understood that God's revelation is not revealed first through a book. Rather, revelation occurs in history, in reality, whether in time and space or within the human spirit. The burning bush preceded the account of it in the Bible; God's conversation with Noah preceded its recording in the Bible; the life of Jesus preceded the Gospels; etc.

The Bible is also not the second stage of revelation. This second stage is the Tradition of the Church, the transmission of the dogmas and practices of the Faith by its members, orally and sacramentally. This preceded the Bible. (2 Thess. 2:14) The Magisterium of the Church, under the Chair of Moses in the Jewish Church and under the Chair of Peter in the Christian Church, are those in the Church granted the authority by God to interpret and administer Tradition and the sacraments. The sacraments are the greatest experience of revelation possible. They are a direct entering into the presence of God, into Heaven thereby. We participate in Heaven and God participates in our lives directly in the sacraments. This is a higher experience than any other, and it is the fullest expression of the true spiritual center of the Christian life: prayer.

The Bible is the third stage of revelation. It is a written record of Tradition. Just as Tradition is the memory of revelation, which occurs in history, the Bible is written in narrative form because revelation itself is a story. It occurs in time, in sequential events. It develops, it has characters and plotlines, as do all narratives. The Bible is not written as a catechesis or as theology. It is far less straightforward and far more difficult to understand precisely because it is more real and more pure, being a record of history, not of ideas. But the Bible does not represent the origin of revelation or the fullness of revelation, as is repeated many times, particularly in the New Testament. St. John and St. Paul testify that there is much more that Christ did and taught, and much more they could teach, than just what they have written. The Bible consists of the essential narratives of revelation. It cannot grant salvation - if it could, God would have sent us a Bible rather than His Son.

This was a profound disagreement between Catholics and Protestants, the latter accusing us of ignoring or downplaying the Bible. To some extent, this may have been the case, though I have not seen it. Catholics throughout history have read and used the Bible extensively. But because we placed the Church over the Bible, Protestants believed we were not treating the Bible correctly as the center of the Faith.

This idea, sola scriptura, remains very prominent in modern Protestant beliefs, whether conservative or liberal. In pursuit of ecumenism, many Catholics have not only focused more on the Bible, but neglected the centrality and primacy of the Church, the importance of Tradition, the authority of the Magisterium, and the meaning of the sacraments. While we should respect the Bible for what it is, and while we should most certainly read it in lectio divina and spiritual contemplation on a regular basis, we cannot let our love of the scriptures become sola scriptura.

This is not meant to be a discussion of the meaning or origin of sola scriptura, or the details of its fallacious nature. I simply wanted to illustrate the fact that it is incompatible with Catholic truth, and that despite our eagerness for ecumenism, we must not let the error of sola scriptura creep into our beliefs. While many modern people seem to place little value on people's beliefs or in the specifics of beliefs, I respect God and I respect truth and I care for people too greatly to adopt this relativistic indifference towards people's errors. I have seen this error occurring, and I pray that this article can perhaps correct my brothers and sisters in the Faith who may be, even unknowingly, falling into this trap. God bless.