When I speak to Protestants, one of the questions that I ask them is what is the basis of their belief. They usually say the Bible. When I ask them why they explain how the Bible is the written word of God. At this point, I usually agree with them but ask why they believe that. Most of the time, their response is one worded, "Faith." I don't blame them for this response. If I were in their position, I would probably say the same thing. When you lack a supreme authority, there is only faith to turn to.
When it comes down to the basis of our beliefs, Catholics have a firmer leg to stand on. We lean on a three-legged stool that balances our faith upon sacred tradition, the magisterium of the Church, and the Bible. In this sense, we don't take any one of those as more important or more supreme as the other, instead they all work in tandem to reveal the truth that Jesus left with us.
Jesus didn't leave us a book, he left us a Church. The reason that we cannot rely solely on the Bible for our understanding of Christianity is because Jesus didn't intend it to be that way. As God, Jesus could have written the Bible. He could have written a book of the Bible. He could have written an introduction. But as it is, he didn't write anything. He could have told us adhere to the new scriptures, but he didn't. He only discussed the scriptures that existed during his life. If Jesus wanted us to follow the Bible, he would have mentioned it. Especially, since he knew that we would be discussing this very issue two thousand years after he left us.
If any single Protestant had any say in what went into the Bible, I am sure that they would make it clear that we are to adhere to the Bible and the Bible alone. But even that would be a problem. Because the Bible cannot argue for itself. That is self-testimony and it doesn't make the Bible any more credible.
That good thing is, is that we don't have to rely on the Bible itself to understand or to believe it. And that's because the Bible lends its credibility to another source. We learn in 1 Timothy 3:15, that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth."
We could look at Church, the very entity that compiled the Bible, based on sacred tradition, and see what they say. If we don't, the results could be chaotic. And that is what we have learned. Because so many don't believe that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth" and only look to the Bible, we have no way of knowing what is true. If every Christian that prayed for understanding and read the Bible, came to the same understanding, then there would be no problem. We could easily have any Christian from any walk of life, pray and read, and interpret and agree. But we don't see that happening. Instead, we see so many pray, read, interpret, and come to varied understandings. Why is that? Because the Bible is a complex document with so many literary devices, purposes, authors, and intentions. Considering that we also bring our own paradigms into our readings, would it be any wonder that we cannot come to consensus?
The fact that there are so many different understandings; the fact that there are so many different sects; that fact that one denomination can differ so greatly from another, should clue us into the fact that we cannot look to the Bible as our sole authority any longer. We have to realize that we need an authority. We have to realize that we need to look beyond our pastor, our own understanding, ourselves and see the truth, that Christ left us a Church that we can lean on. We can't be so arrogant to think that our understanding (especially if it differs from the earliest Christians) is the true understanding. We have to look to something greater.
How about looking to the entity that put the Bible together. That rests its understanding on more than what the Bible says, but on the same tradition that helped put the Bible together. I am not saying that the Church is greater than the Bible, but that we need the Church and the Bible, and the magisterium. None of those are disposable if we really want to know what Christianity means and what it purports.
When it comes down to the basis of our beliefs, Catholics have a firmer leg to stand on. We lean on a three-legged stool that balances our faith upon sacred tradition, the magisterium of the Church, and the Bible. In this sense, we don't take any one of those as more important or more supreme as the other, instead they all work in tandem to reveal the truth that Jesus left with us.
Jesus didn't leave us a book, he left us a Church. The reason that we cannot rely solely on the Bible for our understanding of Christianity is because Jesus didn't intend it to be that way. As God, Jesus could have written the Bible. He could have written a book of the Bible. He could have written an introduction. But as it is, he didn't write anything. He could have told us adhere to the new scriptures, but he didn't. He only discussed the scriptures that existed during his life. If Jesus wanted us to follow the Bible, he would have mentioned it. Especially, since he knew that we would be discussing this very issue two thousand years after he left us.
If any single Protestant had any say in what went into the Bible, I am sure that they would make it clear that we are to adhere to the Bible and the Bible alone. But even that would be a problem. Because the Bible cannot argue for itself. That is self-testimony and it doesn't make the Bible any more credible.
That good thing is, is that we don't have to rely on the Bible itself to understand or to believe it. And that's because the Bible lends its credibility to another source. We learn in 1 Timothy 3:15, that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth."
We could look at Church, the very entity that compiled the Bible, based on sacred tradition, and see what they say. If we don't, the results could be chaotic. And that is what we have learned. Because so many don't believe that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth" and only look to the Bible, we have no way of knowing what is true. If every Christian that prayed for understanding and read the Bible, came to the same understanding, then there would be no problem. We could easily have any Christian from any walk of life, pray and read, and interpret and agree. But we don't see that happening. Instead, we see so many pray, read, interpret, and come to varied understandings. Why is that? Because the Bible is a complex document with so many literary devices, purposes, authors, and intentions. Considering that we also bring our own paradigms into our readings, would it be any wonder that we cannot come to consensus?
The fact that there are so many different understandings; the fact that there are so many different sects; that fact that one denomination can differ so greatly from another, should clue us into the fact that we cannot look to the Bible as our sole authority any longer. We have to realize that we need an authority. We have to realize that we need to look beyond our pastor, our own understanding, ourselves and see the truth, that Christ left us a Church that we can lean on. We can't be so arrogant to think that our understanding (especially if it differs from the earliest Christians) is the true understanding. We have to look to something greater.
How about looking to the entity that put the Bible together. That rests its understanding on more than what the Bible says, but on the same tradition that helped put the Bible together. I am not saying that the Church is greater than the Bible, but that we need the Church and the Bible, and the magisterium. None of those are disposable if we really want to know what Christianity means and what it purports.