Real Authority Page 5

Roman Catholic Claim

Christian Response

From the statement by Rome, one would think that the Roman Church had actually infallibly interpreted the Scriptures and Tradition. But further analysis will show that this is not the case. For example, “What is the infallible interpretation of the verses in the Bible?” In order to know for sure, it would be appropriate to list authoritatively every single verse of Scripture that Rome has infallibly interpreted. In other words, we need an infallible list of infallibly interpreted Bible verses. This will prove to be a difficult task.

To know what verses have been infallibly interpreted, we need an authoritative, infallible source. To inquire on this matter, an acquaintance of ours went straight to Archbishop Montalvo, Papal Nuncio to the USA, because such an infallibly defined list of infallibly interpreted Bible verses was nowhere to be found. We have heard from some Roman Catholics that there are 42 verses that have been infallibly interpreted by Rome. Pope Pius XII, in his Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, stated that “there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church.” [1] Roman Catholic apologists Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl attempted to identify those verses in their book, Catholic Biblical Apologetics. They listed only seven verses which have been definitively interpreted: John 3:5, John 20:22 and 20:23; Luke 22:19; I Corinthians 11:24; Romans 5:12; and James 5:14. [2] With such a lack of precision in the actual number of verses that Rome has infallibly interpreted, approaching the papal nuncio directly seemed to be the best course of action, short of a visit with the pope himself.

So, what was the Papal Nuncio’s answer to the inquiry? He responded that such a question ought to be answered by the Very Reverend J. Augustine DiNoia, Executive Director of the Secretariat for Doctrine and Pastoral Practices in the National Council of Catholic Bishops. In effect, he is the American equivalent of Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. And what was DiNoia's answer? DiNoia consulted an “eminent theologian” to help him answer the question. And what did this unidentified eminent theologian say? He deferred to R. E. Brown’s section on hermeneutics in his New Jerome Biblical Commentary. [3] Brown’s list contained only six passages (though he referred to seven), and his list of six is not merely a subset of Flanagan’s and Schihl’s seven. In his letter to DiNoia, the theologian responded:

"Following Raymond Brown, I would think that a case could be made that the Church has defined something about the correct interpretation of the following seven (sic) passages:

Note that Flanagan and Schihl cite 1 Corinthians 11:24 and Luke 22:19 (for Transubstantiation) and Romans 5:12 (for Original Sin). DiNoia does not. To combine the two lists (though hardly an infallible solution) gives us a total of nine verses on seven topics (baptism, penance, last rights, Petrine primacy, Transubstantiation, original sin and the Immaculate Conception), and this is still very, very far from an exhaustive interpretation of the Bible.

This small list is insufficient for several reasons. First, obviously, the list is not infallible, since it has not been declared ex cathedra by a pope or promulgated by an ecumenical church council. We are no closer now to a list of verses than when certain Roman Catholic acquaintances affirmed that there were 42. Thus, in the shadow of Rome’s silence on this topic, we can add Flanagan and Schihl to the list of people who don’t know how many Bible verses Rome has interpreted. And since Archbishop Montalvo deferred to DiNoia who deferred to his theological consultant, who in turn deferred to Brown, we have not determined what Rome’s interpretation of the Bible is. Instead we have found how hollow Rome’s claim is that “it always interprets the Bible and Tradition accurately.” It hardly interprets the Bible at all! Even DiNoia's theological consultant is baffled as to what such a list can accomplish. Of Brown’s list, he laments:

“Whether the intention was to define the sense of Scripture in these passages is a difficult question. It is difficult, also, to say exactly what was defined—was the intention only to exclude a particular false interpretation, and if the intention was to say something positive, did the Pope or Council mean that this was the only meaning of the text?” [5]

The truth is, neither Montalvo, nor DiNoia, nor the eminent theologian, nor Brown, nor Flanagan nor Schihl can know how many verses Rome has officially infallibly interpreted, or what the interpretation is or means. Nor can any of the world’s one billion Roman Catholics. Nor, apparently, has Rome any intention of telling them. She is unable to do so.

But now let’s consider how well Rome can teach Tradition. One way Tradition is taught in the Church of Rome is through infallible ex cathedra Papal statements. So how many such statements are there, and how can we know infallibly that we have the complete list of them? This, too, is difficult to answer. Different Roman Catholic apologists have asserted very divergent numbers of infallible papal statements. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the doctrine of the Bodily Assumption of Mary were taught “infallibly” by Popes Pius IX and Pius XII in 1854 and 1950, respectively. Both popes taught that these doctrines were divinely revealed Traditions and were therefore part of Christian revelation and to be believed. But are these two the only infallible ex cathedra papal statements ever made? Perhaps they are. It depends on which apologist you ask. Roman apologist Scott Hahn says yes. In his talk on Pope Pius IX's proclamation in 1854, Hahn stated that 1950 was the only other time an ex cathedra statement had ever been made by a pope:

“Now, we have to realize that the Holy Father has only stated dogmatically and infallibly a definition of a doctrine one other time: in 1950, with the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, both her body and soul.” [6]

Hahn has proposed a two-statement canon of ex cathedra papal statements. But apologist Tim Staples says there are at least four, and likely very many more. In his audio tape series, “All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed,” he berates those who claim that popes have only spoken infallibly on only two occasions. Staples mentions the two ex cathedra statements to which Hahn refers, and then adds at least two more, referring first to pope Boniface VIII’s statement Unam Sanctam (1302), and second, to St. Leo’s letter to Flavian* which was examined and approved by the Council of Chalcedon in 451:

“We have infallible statements from popes all the way back. Pope Boniface VIII made an infallible statement in the 13th century concerning papal authority or papal primacy. In the year 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, Pope Leo I made an infallible declaration that was recognized as such by council Fathers concerning the hypostatic union of Christ.” [7]

The Roman Catholic may not initially be concerned over the inability of his apologists or his religion to define an infallible list of ex cathedra statements, as long as there exists the fallible certainty that it may be limited to these four, or three, or two. But that fleeting disinterest spells disaster for the concept of a unified Roman Catholic religion with a defined canon of revelation. The Roman Catholic cannot ignore the fact that his own Church is unable to do the same with something as simple as a list of ex cathedra statements—statements of Tradition, which in Rome are part of the Word of God. As evidence that the dilemma is not limited merely to a few teachings, the Roman Catholic is invited to consider the longer list compiled by Adam S. Miller in his book, The Final Word. Miller assures us that he has the right list when he says his booklet contains, “...a listing of ex cathedra Papal pronouncements on matters of doctrine.” And he joins us in recognizing the significance of the issue when he states that his work contains a listing of “what the Catholic Church has defined as those truths formally revealed by God and necessary for belief.” His proposed canon of ex cathedra statements is eleven. [8] But Roman Catholic priest Leslie Rumble would beg to differ. He has an even longer list in his book, That Catholic Church. In his opinion, there have been 18 ex cathedra papal statements defining Tradition throughout Roman Catholic history. Not only does Rumble’s list contain considerably more statements than Hahn’s, Staples’, and Miller’s, but it also contains two caveats indicating that the degree of certainty of the reliability of his (or any) list is in doubt. To his list of 18, Rumble added two caveats indicating that he is not quite sure. Next to items 12 and 13, he added this clarification:

“There are some Catholic theologians who hold that, although these two decrees of Pope Leo XIII are of the utmost authority, they still fall short of technical requirements for infallible ‘ex cathedra’ utterances.” [9]

And next to items 16 and 17, he added this:

“[These] Two utterances very probably comply with the requirements of an ‘ex cathedra’ decision...” [10]

In an attempt to lay out exactly what it is that the popes have taught infallibly, Roman priest Leslie Rumble ends up deferring to what “some Catholic theologians” believe, and what “very probably” complies with ex cathedra requirements. This is very telling. Perhaps what is missing is an official infallible Tradition about what qualifies as an infallible Papal decree. If Roman Catholics knew with any certainty “the requirements of an ‘ex cathedra’ decision,” this matter could be easily resolved. Unfortunately, within Rome there is as much disagreement on the number of criteria as there is on the number of ex cathedra statements. Exactly what are the criteria by which a papal statement can be considered to have been ex cathedra? And how many criteria are there? Surely, Rome can produce an infallible Tradition on this!

In an attempt to answer this, Roman Catholic apologist, Scott Butler compiled what he calls “A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy” called Jesus, Peter and the Keys. In this book, he provides for his readers three criteria by which one may know that a pope has spoken infallibly. He cites the Vatican Council I statement, Lumen Gentium (brackets added by Butler):

“And this is the infallibility with which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when [1] as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, [2] by a definitive act [3] he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.” [11]

But in contrast to this, the Catholic Encyclopedia indicates that there are actually four criteria by which such a determination must be made. The Encyclopedia's four criteria are not entirely redundant to Butler’s three, and further require that the statement must contain a binding condemnation of error. [12]

Roman Catholic apologist and priest William G. Most, on the other hand, believes there are only two criteria by which a papal definition is to be considered infallible:

“If a Pope intends to make anything definitive, that is infallible. No special form of words is needed. …We conclude that all that is required is [1] the intent to make an item definitive, plus [2] writing in such a way as to make that intent clear.” [13]

The problem that now arises for the Roman Catholic is to determine infallibly which set of criteria should be used to conclude that a doctrine has been taught ex cathedra. Should he use the three criteria or the four or the two? Which set of criteria is the infallible set? Whose interpretation of the two, three or four criteria is the infallible interpretation? The dilemma is severe. Those who prefer to downplay the significance of this are welcome to join the many Roman Catholics in the world who are at this moment debating the infallibility of various papal statements—because they cannot know infallibly which criteria to use. It is no wonder that Roman Catholic apologists will rarely proclaim exactly how many ex cathedra papal statements there have been, or exactly how they know for sure when it is that a Roman Pontiff will exercise this charism of infallibility in the first place. Even here, there is disagreement within Rome.

For example, Roman apologist Karl Keating, founder of the apologetic ministry Catholic Answers, believes the pope normally only exercises the charism of infallibility when a controversial matter must be settled:

“An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone, by an ecumenical council, or by the constant teaching of the Church’s magisterium through the centuries—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question.” [14]

But Roman apologist Hahn believes the exact opposite:

“Now, many people think that this ex cathedra, this official papal pronouncement defining dogma, is sort of like the ultimate way in which the pope resolves doctrinal controversies. That is the opposite of the truth. The pope is not an umpire. The pope is not a referee. …we wrongly understand his office and his ministry if we think that he is just to call ‘fair’ and ‘foul,’ ‘safe’ and ‘out,’ and throw the flag and declare the penalty.” [15]

Which is it? When does a Roman pope speak or teach infallibly, and how can the sheep know infallibly that the shepherd has so taught? In view of all of this, it becomes clear that Roman Catholics—even Roman Catholic apologists—do not know certainly or exhaustively what the pope has infallibly taught or exactly what it is that they are required to believe. Nor do Roman Catholics agree on when or why a pope speaks ex cathedra. Nor do Roman Catholics have an infallible set of criteria by which it can be determined that a pope has spoken infallibly, and neither do they have an infallible means of interpreting the criteria, be they two, be they three or be they four.

Any Roman Catholic will gladly give you his opinion of how many times the popes have exercised this gift. Scott Hahn has affirmed a list of two. But that is Hahn’s opinion. Rumble has offered a canon of possibly 18, most likely 16, but possibly only 14, and Miller thinks it might just be 11. But these are mere opinions. Staples has offered a canon of at least four, and seems to suggest there might be more. But that is his opinion. These are all the fallible opinions of men. The truth is, the infallible list of ex cathedra papal statements exists nowhere within what Rome calls her three sources of revelation: the Bible, the Magisterium, and Tradition. Amazingly, this leaves the faithful to struggle through this issue, groping blindly on their own. In fact, their own teachers will not and cannot tell them.* The Roman Catholic is therefore forced to rely on information which he gathers independently of the Magisterium, the Bible and Tradition in order to understand fallibly what it is that his religion might be teaching him.

To this we will only add that, given the evidence of a Church unable or unwilling to interpret the Bible, unable or unwilling to provide an exhaustive interpretation of its Tradition, it is laughable to assert that God “guides the [Roman Catholic] Church’s teaching authority—the magisterium—so it always interprets the Bible and Tradition accurately.” Rome herself cannot produce these teachings. How much less can Rome’s sheep produce or understand them!

[1] Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, paragraph 47. Promulgated September 30, 1943

[2] Flanagan, Paul & Schihl, Robert, Catholic Biblical Apologetics, © 1985-1997

[3] See Brown, R. E., “Hermeneutics,” New Jerome Biblical Commentary, (Prentice-Hall, 1990), 1146-65, 1163-64

[4] See Appendix II for a copy of the refernced letter.

[5] ibid.

[6] Hahn, Scott, “A Biblical Understanding of Mary,” tape 3 of 4, side 1

* Leo’s letter was actually written in 449. Staples is somewhat inaccurate when he says that Leo “made an infallible declaration” in 451. Rather, the council affirmed it in that year.

[7] Staples, Tim, “All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed,” tape 2 of 6, side 1

[8] Miller, Adam S., The Final Word, (Gaithersburg, MD: Tower of David Publications, ©1997), pg. 28

[9] Rumble, et al, That Catholic Church: A Radio Anaylsis, (St. Paul, MN, Radio Replies Press, ©1954), pg. 81

[10] Rumble, pg. 81

[11] Butler, Scott, et al, Jesus, Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, ©1996), pg. 203. Brackets in original.

[12] The Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright ©1907, Vol VII, pg. 796

[13] Most, Infallibility of Level Three Teachings, (Published electronically for use in classes taught by Fr. Most and for private theological study. Brackets added for clarity)

[14] “Papal Infallibity,” a tract produced by Catholic Answers, (©1996 Catholic Answers, Inc.), http://www.catholic.com/library/papal_infallibility.asp

[15] Hahn, Scott, “A Biblical Understanding of Mary,” tape 3 of 4, side 1

* See Appendix I for evidence of this.

Page 4

Apologetic Zone

Real Baptism