by Jeff Childers

In a recent issue of Gospel Truths magazine, it was reported that one of Jehovah's Witnesses had recently converted to the Protestant sect, the Church of Christ. I sent the lady my congratulations, offering her encouragement on her continuing journey of faith. Shortly thereafter, her husband, Mr. Jediah Logiodice, contacted me, challenging my Catholic faith. The basis of Mr. Logiodice's arguments was the doctrine of sola scriptura: that authority in religion exists in the scripture alone.

In response, I sent this letter to Mr. Logiodice. The letter consists of 11 separate reasons why sola scriptura must be rejected as heresy. The first 9 points deal with sola scriptura in general, while the latter 2 deal with the way the doctrine is interpreted by the Church of Christ.

Readers should be aware that the Church of Christ is a radical Protestant sect. It's origins are in the nineteenth century Restoration Movement of Alexander Campbell and Barton Warren Stone, the first purely American religious movement in all of history. The Church of Christ teaches that it is just that: THE Church OF Christ. All others abuse, add to, and pervert the Word of God, thus consigning themselves to eternal damnation.

More information on the Church of Christ can be found "Catholic and Christian".

Dear Jediah,

I'm sorry that this letter took so long to get to you, but it took a while to write. I think I'd be doing both of us a disservice by hastily throwing something together. Instead, we should always take time to prayerfully consider each other's points before attempting to respond.

To begin with, I will restate the description of sola scriptura to which we have both agreed:

Now, I'll give a brief explanation of the Catholic doctrine. This is not a defense, just a description. This way, we both know where the other stands:

At one time I believed sola scriptura as much as anyone else. I was opposed to Catholicism 100%. However, I came to learn that sola scriptura is unscriptural, unhistorical, and untenable. I will attempt to establish that by making the following points:

• 1) Sola scriptura contradicts itself, because it is not taught in scripture.
• 2) Sola scriptura is an example of the logical fallacy of begging the question, inasmuch as the canonical scriptures never identify what is and what is not scripture.
• 3) The Bible teaches that oral tradition is a source of revelation.
• 4) The Bible shows the Catholic system of authority.
• 5) The writings of the earliest Christians show the Catholic system of authority.
• 6) The legitimate practices of the Jews developed, and the scriptures were not viewed as an exclusive guide.
• 7) The infant Church in Acts is in a constant state of development.
• 8) Sola scriptura was not believed by anybody until the Reformation, and is thus a tradition of man, condemned by Jesus.
• 9) The Bible prophesies the rise and growth of the Catholic Church.
• 10) The Church of Christ has no historical connection to the Church established in Jerusalem in 33 AD.
• 11) The Church of Christ only teaches sola scriptura because she split from Calvinism and is, therefore, a Protestant denomination or sect, and not the Universal Church of the Bible.

The doctrine that the Bible alone is our only religious authority is not taught in the Bible. There is no book, chapter, and verse that demands book, chapter, and verse authority for every doctrine and practice. Don't get me wrong--I believe that the 27 letters which are in the New Testament are inspired. I believe that they are inerrant. I believe that they are authoritative. However, they NEVER CLAIM to be our only authority. The entire doctrine collapses because it contradicts itself.

Dr. Scott Hahn relates a telephone conversation he had with a professor when he was first discovering the Catholic faith:

"To one professor I said, Maybe I'm suffering from amnesia, but somehow I've forgotten the simple reasons why we believe the Bible is our sole authority.'

" Scott, what a dumb question!'

" Just give me a dumb answer.'

" Scott,' he responded. You really can't demonstrate sola scriptura from Scripture. The Bible doesn't expressly declare that it is the Christian's only authority.'" (1)

You see, Jediah, without the express command of the Bible to follow the Bible alone, sola scriptura becomes this monstrously illogical rule: All religious truth must come from the Bible alone, EXCEPT for the truth that all religious truth must come from the Bible alone.

When Jesus promised his apostles the Holy Spirit, he told them that they would preach the truth to all peoples. He never said anything to them about writing any scriptures! Jesus never alluded in any way, shape, or form, to the fact that his followers would be bound solely to a book which would later be produced. The only time Jesus every commanded anyone to write was when he appeared in a vision to St. John, and commanded him to write the seven letters which we know as the Book of Revelation.

None of the books of the New Testament, with the exception of Revelation, ever claim to be inspired. (In a couple of St. Paul's letters, he makes statements which may imply inspiration. I certainly won't argue against that.) The Biblical letters--supposedly our only authority--seldomly comment on their own authority, and never insist that they are the only authority.

I challenge you--and I mean this entirely in a friendly way--to provide a passage which tells us that we are limited to the New Testament. (You won't even find a passage that tells us there is a New Testament.)

What about 2 Timothy 3? You'll find that in context, this passage is speaking only about the Septuagint Old Testament. St. Timothy was a Greek Jew, whose Scriptures were the 72 books of the Greek Old Testament. St. Paul speaks of the "sacred writings" which Timothy had known "from childhood." Those writings did not include the New Testament. Such a Testament had not existed from Timothy's childhood (and would not exist in compiled form for another 300 years).

The Apostle then states that all of this scripture--all 72 of the Books of the Alexandrian Canon (identical to the Catholic Old Testament)--are inspired and profitable. Notice that one word: PROFITABLE. It does not say sufficient. John Calvin, Thomas Campbell and Roy Cogdill say SUFFICIENT, but St. Paul says PROFITABLE.

What about Revelation 22:18? Doesn't St. John say not to add to or take away from the Bible?

No, but even if he did, this would not prove sola scriptura. A Catholic would object to tampering with the Biblical text as much as anyone else. When Jehovah's Witnesses pervert the Sacred Writ, the Catholic Church is angered, for she loves the Scriptures. Forbidding to tamper with the text is not the same as calling the text your only authority. If I lend you a dictionary, I hope you don't rip out any pages or add your own definitions, however I wouldn't mind if you used other sources as well. All of these points are moot, though, since the passage is talking only about the Book of Revelation, and not the whole Bible.

If there's a passage which teaches sola scriptura, please let me know. If there's not, then the entire concept self destructs. It fails it's own test! Sola scriptura is not in the scriptura.

Your belief requires that every doctrine you hold be found in the pages of the Scriptures. However, the Scriptures fail to answer one all important question: What is scripture?

When we go to the store and buy a nice leather bound Bible, chosen as our favorite out of a hundred different bound Bibles, it's easy to forget that this is not how the Bible was originally available. The New Testament was originally 27 separate letters sent to separate people about various issues. You believe that those 27 letters, now conveniently collected into one volume, are the sole source of the faith. Which leads to a problem. There is no passage in any of the 27 letters which states: "The following books (and only the following books) are scripture: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation." Yet you believe just that. So what's your authority? No matter what you say (inner guidance of the Holy Spirit, the testimony of the early Christians, historical evidence, the Catholic Church, etc.) you violate your own rule--that all authority is in the Scriptures.

Few of the letters are even self-authenticating. As mentioned above only Revelation and maybe one or two of St. Paul's epistles claim to be inspired. To claim that any of the other books of the Bible are inspired forces you to violate your own rule--the Bible is silent, yet you speak nonetheless.

Many of the letters are anonymous. To call St. Matthew the author of Matthew or St. John the author of 2 John requires you to violate your rule again--the Bible never says that Matthew wrote Matthew or that John wrote John (or Mark Mark, or Luke Luke and Acts, or John 1, 2, and 3 John, or Paul Hebrews).

The only evidence that the traditional authors of the Gospels and Epistles mentioned in the preceding paragraph are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul is Catholic Tradition. You reject that authority, so with what do you replace it?

The only evidence that the 26 books of the New Testament (excluding the self-attesting Revelation) are inspired is the authoritative proclamation of the Catholic Church. You reject that authority, so with what do you replace it?

The only evidence that only the Old Testament and the 27 letters that are in our New Testament are inspired is the authoritative proclamation of the Catholic Church. You reject that authority, so with what do you replace it?

The Catholic Church, after three centuries of thoughtful consideration, chose the 27 books of the New Testament. Some of them, like Hebrews and Revelation, were thought by many to not belong, but the Catholic Church put them in. Other works, like 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistles of Ignatius, etc., which were thought by many to be inspired, were left out. We even decided to leave out one of St. Paul's letters--Laeodicians--even though he mentions it in Colossians 4:16.

It is very true that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for the way they treated their traditions. Notice, however, that is was not the fact that they had traditions that was wrong--it was the fact that they were "teaching as doctrines" what were merely "traditions of men." (Mark 7:7) The crime of the Pharisees was that they elevated their own custom--washing of hands, Sabbath laws, etc--above the Law of God. In much the same way, they were able to assassinate the Son of God, but still remain ritually pure. Pharisaism, then, is focusing on the letter of the Law to the exclusion of the spirit of the Law.

It is also true that St. Paul condemns in his Epistle to the Galatians anyone who "preaches another gospel." About whom is the Apostle warning? It is Jewish Christians, probably former Essenes, who were preaching that man is justified only by following the Torah. St. Paul asserts that man is not justified by works of the Torah, but the grace of Jesus Christ. (Calvinists abuse this passage by teaching that man is justified apart from works. You and I know that the Apostle is referring to works of the Torah.)

We agree, Jediah, that false doctrine and traditions invented by men to subvert the true faith are unacceptable. For something to be taught as doctrine, it must be part of the depositum fidei given to the apostles by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost--the depositum once and for all handed down to the holy ones.

Searching the scriptures, one finds that there are several truths which the apostles believed, and which they assumed everyone believed, which were oral traditions. The oral traditions, though not part of the scripture, were just as much the Word of God.

I'll share a few examples, and can provide more if you'd like.

Matthew 2:23 relates some early events in the life of Jesus and the Holy Family. In this instance, after fleeing from Herod, the Holy Family comes to dwell in Nazareth. Matthew contends that this is a fulfillment of a prophecy: "He went down and dwelled in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled: He shall becalled a Nazarean.'"

Matthew quotes this prophecy as a revealed truth, and acts as if his audience were familiar with it. It is obvious that this prophecy was part of the depositum fidei. Yet, it is a prophecy of oral tradition. Such a prophecy is nowhere in scripture. The scriptures are silent--but Matthew speaks.

In 2 Timothy 3:8, St. Paul compares the heretics of his day to the ancient Egyptian sorcerers who opposed Moses in front of Pharaoh. "Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so they oppose the truth--people of depraved mind, unqualified in the faith." Search the Exodus account, Jediah, and you won't find the names "Jannes and Jambres." They are part of an oral tradition that, believed by the inspired Apostle, speaks where the scriptures are silent.

If I had believed in praying to saints at the same time as I believed in sola scriptura, Jediah, I probably would have appealed to St. Jude, the Patron Saint of Hopeless Causes. Indeed, it is St. Jude's Epistle which shows just how hopeless sola scriptura is. In his very short letter, he twice appeals to an oral tradition outside of the scriptures as if it were revealed by God. In speaking of the heretics of his day, one of his concerns is the lack of honor that they pay to angels. (I'm not making this up--read v. 8) In contrast to such heresy, St. Jude relays a story about St. Michael the Archangel: "Yet the Archangel Michael, when he argued with the devil in a dispute over the body of Moses, did not venture to pronounce of reviling judgment upon him but said, May the Lord rebuke you.'" (Jude 9) St. Jude seems to be fairly sure that his audience knows this story well. If they did, they didn't learn it from scripture, but from oral tradition. Centuries after it happened, that oral tradition was finally recorded in a non-biblical Jewish apocalypse called "The Assumption of Moses."

The "slave of Jesus Christ and brother of James" isn't through with the bombshells yet, Jediah. He goes on to tell yet another story as he debunks the heretics who, like Korah, are rebelling against the legitimate authorities in the Church. "Enoch, of the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied also about them when he said, Behold, the Lord has come with his countless holy ones to execute judgment on all and to convict everyone for all the godless deeds that they committed and for all the harsh words godless sinners have uttered against him." (Jude 14,15)

Notice, Jediah, that this prophecy is not in scripture. It was handed down from the time of Enoch--generations before even Noah--until just 100 years before Christ, when it was finally recorded in the First Book of Enoch, which is not scripture! Jude directly quotes from 1 Enoch 1:9. This is oral tradition about which the scripture are silent, but Jude speaks.

I could show many other examples, but I know you're a busy man. If you are interested in more examples, let me know.

How could mere men pass along an oral tradition without it being corrupted? They couldn't. It required the guidance of God. Jesus assured his contemporaries that their leaders, despite all their sins, had such a guidance. That's why, just before he condemned the priests, scribes, and Pharisees in Matthew 23, he gave an unqualified approval to their teachings. The Jews were to obey their corrupt leaders because God saw to it that they taught the truth: "The scribes and Pharisees have taken their seat on the Chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER that they tell you, but do not follow their example." (Matthew 23:2,3)

What I hope to establish in my next point is that the scriptures support the notion of Catholic authority--that the Seat of Moses, passed down in succession for 1500 years until the time of Christ and the High Priesthood of Caiaphas--was transferred to the Church where it became the Seat of Peter.

We agree, I'm sure, that the events which transpired in the land of the Jews in the first century AD are monumental events indeed. The coming of Jesus Christ, the preaching of the Gospel, and the establishment of the Church truly rocked the order of the world. The Roman Empire's fate was sealed by the few faithful men and women who, by their holy lives and holy deaths, turned the world upside down. It is these holy people in this most tumultuous era which produced the 27 letters which we know as the New Testament. As the inspired Word of God, these venerable documents give us a profound insight into answering this all-important question: What was really going on in the first century?

"In times past," writes the Apostle, "God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a Son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe, who is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty Word." (Hebrews 1:1-3)

Elsewhere, he makes the same point: "When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law." (Galatians 4:4) At the turn of the first century, God the Son, the Divine Logos, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father, through whom all things were made, for us men and for our salvation," "came down from Heaven. By the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary."(2) Jesus, the Messiah of Prophecy, "became flesh and dwelt among us." (John 1:14) Jesus "suffered under Pontius Pilate" (3) and accomplished our salvation by his Blood Atonement on the cross of Calvary.

He came to bring all nations back into relationship with God. To do this, he established the Church. Twelve men were chosen as apostles to lead the Church. They were given a share in his authority. Once he returned to heavenly glory, the Twelve ruled in his place. To those apostles, Jesus declared: "Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 18:18)

Elsewhere, Jesus equates the authority of the apostles with his own, and his own with the Father's. "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me." (Matthew 10:40)

Over the other apostles, Jesus appointed St. Peter. St. Peter was given responsibility to guide the other apostles. "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers." (Luke 22:31,32) Matthew 10:2 specifically states that St. Peter is the Chief of the apostles, as the list of apostles begins like this: "first, Simon called Peter." Using the Greek word protos, which is often translated "chief," St. Matthew refers to St. Peter's authority. Numerically, of course, St. Andrew, Peter's brother, is the first apostle.

St. Peter exercises his leadership over the apostles in Acts 1, where, at his order, a new apostle is chosen. In Acts 4, when the apostles are arrested, it is St. Peter who is forced to testify on their behalf. St. Peter in Acts 5 sentences Ananias and Sapphira to death for, by lying to St. Peter, "lying to the Holy Spirit." As Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter is Head of the Church. This does not take away from Christ's headship. Under the Old Covenant, the Davidic kings had Major Domos who ruled with the authority of the king while the king was away. (See Isaiah 22) The kings remained heads of the kingdom. Likewise, while the final Davidic king, Jesus Christ, is away, St. Peter rules as his Major Domo. The Prince of the Apostles was given the commission to shepherd, not just the sheep among him, but all of the Lord's sheep.

"Feed my lambs...Tend my sheep...Feed my sheep." (John 21:15-17)

So important is the role of Simon Bar Jonah in the Church, that Jesus gives him a title making him Vicar of Christ. That title is "Rock," for only God is a Rock. Christ is God, and authorized to grant the Divine title to whom he will. Only once before had that title been given, and that's to St. Abraham the Patriarch. (Is. 51:1) Jesus takes the Divine title and grants it to Simon Bar Jonah to use in place of his name. Then, Jesus the Chief Cornerstone, goes even further and promised to build his new community of faith on Simon. "And so I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." Jesus establishes St. Peter's role as Major Domo: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

The authority which belongs to all of the apostles together belongs to St. Peter by himself, for the Lord continues: "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:18ff)

To the apostles, Jesus promised to entrust the depositum fidei. "I have much more to tell you," said Jesus, "but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth." (John 16:12,13) The Holy Spirit did come upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost, instilling in them the entire Word of God.

Jesus had commissioned the apostles to "go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15) So that "everyone (could) be saved and come to knowledge of the truth," Jesus granted to the apostles the charism of infallibility. (1 Timothy 2:4) It was not enough for the Holy Spirit to give the apostles the true faith, the depositum fidei, but he would also see to it that the apostles continued to teach the truth without doctrinal or moral error. Said our Blessed Lord, "The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you." (John 14:26) Only if it was assured that the apostles would teach truth would it be possible for Jesus to tell his apostles: "Whoever receives you receives me." (Matthew 10:40)

The infallibility of St. Peter and the Twelve is not the same as impeccability, or sinlessness. The only one who was by nature sinless was Jesus himself. (The Blessed Mother was also without sin, but not by nature. She was preserved from sin by the grace of God, of which she was perfectly full, that she might be worthy to carry the Incarnate God in her womb.)

The apostles were great men, but still only men. They had the same temptations and weaknesses that all men do. St. Peter and the Twelve were not infallible because of their innate holiness. Rather, they were infallible because of a gift of God in spite of their sins.

The apostles spread the gospel to the nations, sacrificing their lives for the cause of Christ. They preached the whole depositum fidei, so that St. Jude could rightly describe the faith as "once and for all handed down to the holy ones." (Jude 3) From time to time, certain specific problems arose in the infant Church requiring direct apostolic intervention. When an apostle was unable to come to the aid of the specific local church or churches affected, he wrote an epistle. So that this epistle would be just as reliable as his preaching, God the Holy Spirit inspired the author. The written epistles were to be considered every bit as binding on the Church as the preached word. Both were part of the depositum fidei; both were the Word of God. St. Paul commands: "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thessalonians 2:15) (Some have claimed in recent centuries that we are only to follow the traditions taught in "a letter of ours," the Scriptures, and not those taught "by an oral statement." Some claim that all of the "oral statement[s]" were eventually recorded in letters. These claims can not be supported by scripture, tradition, or history.)

The apostles were not alone in spreading the gospel throughout the world.

All Christians, by virtue of their baptism, share the responsibility of evangelization. Certain men were chosen by the apostles to share in the leadership of the Church. These men were called deacons, presbyters, and bishops. (The Greek term "presbuteroi" is translated sometimes as "presbyter," sometimes as "elder," and sometimes as "ancient." It is the etymological origin of the English "priest," and is often rendered such by the Douay-Rheims Bible. "Bishop" is the English translation of "episkopoi," also translated as "overseer.") These three orders of successors to the apostles were ordained by the laying on of the apostles' hands and the reception of the Holy Spirit. Deacons are called to a ministry of service. (See Acts 6:1-6) In fact, the Greek "diakonos" is still used today to refer, not only to deacons, but to waiters. The presbyters are the delegates of the bishop. They share in governing the Church. Often, there are several of them in each local church. They inherit from the apostles, by the gift of the Holy Spirit, the power to turn bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ and the power to forgive sins. (See Acts 15:2, Titus 1:5, John 20:22,23) The bishops are the leaders or shepherds of the Church. They have authority over all congregations in their area. They ordain presbyters and deacons, and have the authority to excommunicate. (See Titus 1:5, 3:20) Those who succeeded the apostles by the laying on of hands shared in their authority. These men were guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. Their preached message and their inspired writings are the very Word of God. (It is important to note that of the twelve apostles directly promised the Holy Spirit, only three chose to write what is now recognized as Scripture.)

Scripture shows, Jediah, that it was not only the apostles and those on whom they laid their hands that were guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. The line of succession has continued to this day in the deacons, priests, and bishops of the Catholic Church. You have objected to this, citing Acts 8. In Acts 8, St. Phillip converts and baptizes many Samaritans. When it comes time for them to receive the Holy Spirit or, in Catholic terms, the Sacrament of Confirmation, Phillip is unable to do this. He sends for Ss. Peter and John from Jerusalem, who come and lay hands on the Samaritans. From this you argue that only the apostles could confer the gift of the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands. The Church of Christ, Baptists, and other non-Charismatic Protestants use this to argue against Pentacostalism and Catholicism, both of which involve the transmission of the gift of the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands. To the Catholic, Jediah, this passage does not prove anything. You see, St. Phillip was a deacon. Deacons do not have the power to anoint people with the Holy Spirit. Priests and bishops, like the apostles, do have that power. We use this passage to demonstrate that the power to Confirm belongs only to rightly ordained priests and bishops.

There is substantial scriptural evidence that the apostolic succession was intended to continue. First, let's consider St. Timothy. As a co-author of Sacred Scripture (2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon) and close companion of the Apostle, I'm sure you'd agree that he received the gift of the Holy Spirit by the hand of St. Paul. 1 Timothy 4:14 speaks of this occasion. Catholics generally interpret this as Timothy's ordination as Bishop of Ephesus. However, the passage could technically refer to any situation in which St. Timothy received the Spirit--Confirmation, ordination as deacon or presbyter, or to receive miraculous power. Notice how the Holy Spirit was given: "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word and the imposition of hands of the presbyterate." The NAS and KJV have: "the laying on of hands of the presbytery." The NRSV has: "the laying on of hands by the council of elders." The Douay-Rheims has: "imposition of the hands of the priesthood." The NIV has: "when the body of elders laid their hands on you."

This leaves us, Jediah, with two possibilities.

1) St. Timothy received the Holy Spirit from presbyters and not apostles.

If this is the case, then your objection has fallen completely apart. With early presbyters/elders/priests conferring the gift of the Holy Spirit without apostles, it is proven that not only apostles can give the gift of the Holy Spirit. The apostolic succession did not end with the death of the last apostle. Rather, those on whom the apostles laid their hands also laid their hands on people, WITH THE SAME EFFECT.

2) St. Paul was among the "council of elders" which gave Timothy the Spirit.

Personally, I agree with this interpretation. 2 Timothy 1:6 appears to back it up. It's also the less embarrassing of the two for you. Still, it does not support your view. You see, Jediah, the Scriptures attribute the giving of the Spirit not only to the (unmentioned) apostle, but to all of the presbyters. Also, if St. Paul was a presbyter/elder/priest, that disproves the Church of Christ's notion that an elder MUST be married with children. (The historic Catholic interpretation of "husband of one wife" is married only once.)

Another scriptural example is that of St. Titus, Bishop of Crete. The Scripture is very clear that St. Titus, who inherited his authority from the Apostle Paul, had complete authority in Crete. St. Paul urges him: "Let no one look down on you. Exhort and correct with all authority." (Titus 2:15) ALL AUTHORITY: What a powerful phrase! There is no implication in the text that Titus served either as an elder or a preacher in the sense understood by the Church of Christ. He neither shares his authority with other Cretan elders, nor works as a preacher under the Cretan elders. In fact, elders are subject to his authority: "For this reason I left you in Crete that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town." (Titus 1:5) The KJV has: "ordain elders," and the Douay-Rheims has "ordain priests." Officials are not appointed by those under them. You don't choose your boss at work.

Likewise, St. Timothy also has authority over his elders, so much so that he is the one who hears and judges the crimes committed by them. If your boss were to commit tax fraud, would it be your place to remove him from office? Of course not! But listen to these words of St. Paul to Timothy: "Do not accept an accusation against a presbyter (KJV, 'elder,' Douay-Rheims, ' priest') unless it is supported by two or three witnesses. Reprimand publicly those who do sin, so that the rest will also be afraid." (1 Timothy 5:19,20)

Right after explaining to Timothy how to handle unworthy presbyters, St. Paul offers definitive proof that men other than the apostles could practice the laying on of hands: "Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another's sins." (1 Timothy 5:22) The Scriptures are clear that those who serve as leaders of the Church; deacons, presbyters, and bishops; do so by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Hence, St. Paul commands the Macedonian bishops: "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." (Acts 20:28) Jediah, you believe that the elders of the Churches of Christ are the "bishops" or "overseers" that the Apostle mentions. Yet, you also deny the power to confer the gift of the Holy Spirit to all but the apostles.

Unless one of the apostles visited Maine to lay hands on your elders, then how can you say that the Holy Spirit made them overseers?(And if the Holy Spirit did not make them overseers, they are not really overseers.)

Even during the life of the apostles, the ordained presbyters and bishops shared in governing the Church. For many years, St. Peter and the Twelve remained at the Mother Church, Jerusalem, while St. Paul exercised his authority in transit. When the first grave heresy arose, that of the Judaizers, St. Paul came to meet with the apostles in Jerusalem. It was not, however, the apostles alone who made the decision. Paul brought with him St. Barnabas, who is called an apostle but is not of the same rank as the Twelve and Paul. In Jerusalem they met with "the apostles and presbyters." (Acts 15:2) After grueling hours of unrecorded discussion, St. Peter decided the matter.(Acts 15:7-11) St. James the Righteous, who had sympathized with the Jews, spoke, granting assent of will to the decision of St. Peter and the council. When the decision was codified in a letter, it was written in the name of "the apostles and presbyters," and stated that it's ruling was "the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us." (Acts 15:23,28)

Since the line of succession was intended to continue, so was the charism of infallibility. Indeed, the second, third, tenth, and ten thousandth generation of Christians is every bit as important to our Lord as was the first. That is why he has guaranteed to preserve his Church from teaching error. Since the bishops of the Catholic Church enjoy a direct traceable succession from Christ and the apostles, when they speak together on matters of faith and morals, they cannot err. Also, since Jesus appointed St. Peter to be his Vicar and the visible head of the Church on earth, his successors, the Bishops of Rome, enjoy the same authority.

Notice, Jediah, what Jesus said when promising the apostles the Holy Spirit: "I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, TO BE WITH YOU ALWAYS." (John 14:16)

Elsewhere, the Lord promised, "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world." (Matthew 28:20) Or, as St. Isaiah foretold, "My Spirit which is upon you and my words that I have put into your mouth shall NEVER leave your mouth, nor the mouths of your children, nor the mouths of your children's children, FROM NOW ON AND FOREVER, says the Lord." (Isaiah 59:21) Because the Spirit continues to remain with the Church and continues to guide our leaders into all truth, we can be confident that, as St. Paul says, "the Church of the living God (is) the pillar and foundation of truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)

Next, we will look at how the first Christians after the apostles interpreted their words. Did they believe in and adhere to the Catholic system, or did they believe in sola scriptura?

Continue to Part II of this article

Return to Catholicsource Main Page