While spiritual-not-religious Catholics may reject Church authority in favor of seeking some vague “spirituality,” “Protestant Catholics” take a slightly different path. Following Protestantism, they seek a relationship with Jesus Christ that is “uncontaminated” by human intermediaries. Let’s talk about Protestantism, then, for a moment.
Protestants have replaced the visible, unified, and hierarchical Church—founded on St. Peter—with the Bible alone. But, the Bible was born within the Church, and the Bible identifies the Church as the visible body of Jesus Christ on Earth and “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”[1]
Protestantism has abandoned the kind of relationship God wants us to have with Him in and through His Church, and replaced it with various (often individualist) interpretations of the Bible. But this is a mistake, because Christ is one with His Church, and the Church along with Christ is the Whole Christ: Christ the head, and the Church, His body.[2]
What, then, are “Protestant Catholics”? Many Catholics, especially those raised in a Protestant culture such as in the United States, often assume a Protestant paradigm. That is, they see the Catholic Church of little or even trivial importance; it’s really the Bible that matters. They buy into Protestant assertions of the Church’s corruption and of it being a barrier to a deeper, more intimate relationship with God. Many of them are suspicious of Catholic teaching on matters such as purgatory and Confession. Such Catholics might be found in Bible study groups but may rarely be in the confession line.
The Heart of the Matter: The Church or the Bible?
At the heart of our discussion here is the essential Protestant doctrine of “Sola Scriptura,” translated as “Bible Alone.” This teaching denies in practice the infallible authority of the Catholic Church, and risks reducing Christianity to the Bible.
The Problems with Being a “Bible Only” Catholic
If a Catholic adopts the ethos of Sola Scriptura, they face the same dilemmas that Protestants must face with respect to the nature of the Scriptures and their relationship to the Church. For example:
- No book—not even the Bible—is self-interpreting. In fact, this is why there are numerous denominations of Protestantism: they diverge on significant issues precisely because of the differing interpretations of Scripture! If God wanted us to have the Bible as our sole infallible source of teaching, then why make the process of deciphering the Bible so very difficult? With the infallible authority of the Catholic Church, the issue is resolved, for we can rely on the interpretation and teachings of the Catholic Church to guide us in all that is essential for salvation. On that note, let me turn to the second problem.
- The Bible does not tell us what should be contained in the Bible. The Bible does not come with an “inspired Table of Contents.” We know what books are inspired by God because the Catholic Church decided upon the canon of Scripture beginning in the 4th century, and formally defining it in the 16th. In order to do this, she drew upon the Apostolic Tradition, and the reliable testimony of the early Christians to determine authentic Scripture from forgeries and uninspired christian literature. Prior to that, a “closed canon” was not a critical necessity (as it would be for Protestants who rely solely on the Bible) because the Church could guide people accordingly whenever disputes arose. Another way to put it is to say that the Church precedes the Bible. Again, you can’t have the Bible (or at least you can’t make sense of the Bible) without the Catholic Church. This leads to the third observation.
- The Bible cannot teach a person how to apply its lessons to contemporary circumstances. The Bible is a book which is historically situated. But in our days, we have entirely novel situations facing us, from modern technology to international war. The Bible does not teach clearly how to handle such situations or how the teachings of Christ should apply to them. For that, we need an authority, an interpreter. Catholics have that authority in the hierarchy of the Church. That authority was especially important given the fourth observation.
- It would have been impossible for the earliest Christians to access the Bible. Consider the fact that there was no complete Bible (as we know it) until the 4th century, and even then the books weren’t put together in a single volume. Also consider that a wide swath of people couldn’t read. Even those who could read the Scriptures would have a difficult time of it, owing to personal copies being cost-prohibitive for most of Christian history. Either way, it does not seem fitting that God would require of ancient Christians such an enormous (if not impossible) task — to rely upon the infallible authority of the Bible for salvation, when the Bible is not directly accessible.
- Lastly, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is unbiblical. There is no basis for the doctrine of “Bible alone” anywhere in the Bible, but there is a strong basis for Church authority and tradition.[3]
So the doctrine of “sola scriptura” is a mess. But such is to be expected, since Protestantism is separated from the pillar and foundation of truth—the Catholic Church. We need the Church to make fuller sense of the Bible; and God did, in fact, give us the Church to guide us—by the power of His Holy Spirit—into all truth.[4]
None of this is to deny the real corruption that has tragically infested the Church more or less throughout her 2000-year history. This corruption—this sin—has occurred on multiple levels. As history shows, some Popes were morally atrocious, as were various Cardinals and Bishops. There has been (and still is) corruption among the clergy. All of us are sinners, and we must struggle bravely against the desires of our flesh. But be all this as it may, no level of moral corruption within the Church impugns the divine nature of the Church as Christ’s Body. Jesus calls His followers, including those He appointed to be shepherds, to repentance; but He does not abandon His Church and start over.
Also, none of this is to deny the great love and reverence that Catholics have for the Holy and Divine Scriptures. The Church encourages the faithful to read the Sacred Scriptures, teaches that the Scriptures truly have God as their author, and has long adopted the affirmation of St. Jerome: “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.”[5]
When speaking with “Protestant-Catholics,” we ought to appeal to their sense of love and obedience to the Lord, speak with great love and reverence for the Scriptures, and make frequent use of them.[6]
Example Dialogue
Let’s see how we might engage a “Protestant-Catholic” in a real-life conversation.
[Evangelist stands near a street corner with Miraculous Medals in hand. He smiles and says hello to passerby.]
Evangelist: Would you like a Miraculous Medal?
Passerby: I already got a bunch of those, dude. I even got some in my car right now!
E: That’s great! So you’re Catholic?
P: I sure am! We just had our Bible study last night.
E: Awesome! Do you come from a Catholic family?
P: Yep, I’ve been a Catholic from birth. Of course, though there are some parts of the Church that I just can’t get on board with, but [P shrugs] hey, we can’t change everything all at once. We’ll get there.
E: Can’t change everything? I take it there’s some stuff about the Church you wish were different?
P: Sure! There are things that the Catholic Church prohibits that I don’t see prohibited in the Bible. Things like contraception and female priests. And I don’t see purgatory in there either.
E: I’ve heard that before, do you have a few minutes to talk about these things?
P: Sure, I’ve got some time.
E: It seems like you’re saying that if something isn’t taught in the Bible, then why bother believing in it. Is that right?
P: Of course.
E: Alright, then my question for you is, where in the Bible does it say that we shouldn’t believe in things unless they are in the Bible?
P: What do you mean?
E: If we’re only supposed to believe in stuff that’s in the Bible, but that very statement isn’t in the Bible, then we shouldn’t believe it.
P: OK, but I’m not sure that addresses my concerns about these unbiblical beliefs.
E: Ah, but I think it highlights a basic misunderstanding. Can I give you one good reason why I believe that God’s revelation consists of more than the Bible?
P: Yeah, this ought to be good.
E: Ok, no book can interpret itself. We need somebody to interpret the Bible in a modern day context.
P: I don’t know if I agree with that. Jesus said the Holy Spirit will lead me into all truth. I can read the Bible just fine and I know what it’s telling me.
E: Lots of people read the Bible and think they know what it’s telling them. But then why do we have thousands of different denominations? If everyone can read the Bible just fine and know what it’s telling them, how did everyone get so divided about it? Why all the different interpretations?
P: Ok, but the Catholic Church is just another interpretation. Why do we think that our church’s interpretations are all correct?
E: Good question. Let me answer by way of an analogy. For almost any other book, if people had different ideas about what it meant, we could ask the author what he or she intended, if they were still alive. We might also investigate other writings by the same author, or talk to people who knew them. In other words, we look at the context beyond the book itself to understand the author’s original intent. Are you with me so far?
P: Yeah, so far.
E: Ok, so the Church does the same thing with the Bible. To know and understand the Bible, the Church looks beyond the book itself to the Tradition given to the Church by the Apostles. Instead of only looking at the Bible, the Church also takes into account what the Church Fathers believed, because the people who were closest to Christ and His Apostles would have a better idea of what they believed and taught than modern preachers who are in different churches and a different context. What do you think of that?
P: I like it so far.
E: The bottom line is that the Church didn’t come from the Bible. The Bible came from the Church. That was the context it was written in. And because of that, we can trust the Church which put the Bible together.
P: Wait a minute, why should I trust men over the word of God?
E: You’re already trusting men. God used men to give us the word of God, and in the word of God He says to listen to those men. “If any man will not listen to the Church, let him be to you as the heathen and the tax collector.” Matthew 18:17. If you don’t trust men, you can’t trust the Bible.
P: Yeah, but I trust those men. There’s all kinds of corruption in the Church now though. Just pick up a newspaper.
E: Jesus promised that there would always be corruption. He said, “Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves” in Matthew 7:15. But He also promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church in Matthew 16:18. He wouldn’t say that if He didn’t protect His Church from teaching falsehood.
P: So you think the early church believed in all the things that the Catholic Church teaches today?
E: Yep — essentially! The earliest Christians, such as St. Clement and St. Ignatius, wrote about a Church that was visible, unified, sacramental, it had bishops and priests, and — importantly — they had authority. The early Christians deferred to the Church’s authority on matters of faith and morals. They didn’t go by the Bible alone. How could they, when it hadn’t even been put together yet? Instead, they were all devout Catholics, listening to the Church, like Jesus said we should do.
P: Well, I was always taught that if something wasn’t in the Bible, you shouldn’t trust it. But now that you’ve mentioned all these different denominations and stuff, it’s given me something to think about.
E: Yeah, and Jesus prayed for unity. He doesn’t want all these different denominations — He said “I will build my church,” He didn’t say “I will build my churches.” When we’re scattered like this, we’re weak, and that’s why we’re being overrun by the world right now.
P: Yeah, we are, aren’t we. Well, I gotta run. Thanks for the chat. I’m gonna pray about what you said.
E: My pleasure. Hey, before you go, can I get your number so I can text you a great book about this stuff?
P: That’d be great, thanks! [E hands P some information]
Concluding Thoughts
To conclude this segment, we must say that Catholics should not assume Protestant positions and paradigms. They should believe Catholic teaching and be Catholic. They should defer to the authority of the Catholic Church, seeing the Church not as an oppressor, but by the grace of Christ, as a liberator; as a light that shines in the darkness. If it weren’t for the Church, we would not have the Gospel, the Scriptures, or the Sacraments. In short, we would not know Christ.
[1] 1 Timothy 3:15.
[3] Cf. 1 Corinthians 11:1-2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Timothy 3:15.
[4] John 14:16-17, 26; 16:13.
[5] St. Jerome, Commentariorum in Isaiam libri xviii prol.: Patrologia Latina volume 24, page 17B (cited in CCC 133).
[6] For more resources to help with understanding Protestant doctrine, see the Called to Communion website.