I have been going through the transcripts of the debate between James White and Gerry Matatics. In the section, first of the four minute questions, James responds to the question regarding rabbidic tradition being taught in scripture, Matt 23:2, with this: "R.T. Francis' commentary says, Moses `Seat' is a figurative expression
for the teaching authority for those officially responsible for interpreting and applying the law of Moses."

That is just the point; the fact that it is figurative language does not matter.  To concede is to admit defeat, so I did not expect a concession in the debate transcripts.  The "figurative expression" explaining that the priest received the authority to teach and interpret the Law of Moses is not taught in scripture.  The argument that Jesus always teaches from scripture breaks down, or should I say crumbles in the storm?  As for the "tongue in cheek argument," please let me demonstrate where it fails.  It shows the consistency of the Catholic position, and the inconsistency of the argument of R.T. Francis that is put forth.

John 11:49-53:

But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish." He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they took counsel how to put him to death.

Let us return to the first part of the answer; first James left out a significant piece, "The law AND the prophets, i.e.  the
Scripture."  You see in one sense, R.T. Francis is correct.  Maybe it is so clear, like the nose on our faces that it is difficult to
see.  If God created an office guided by the Holy Spirit for officially teaching and interpreting the Word in the Old testament
to guide his people and to assure the correct interpretation of His infallible Word, why would he not do so in the New Covenant? What good is the infallible Word without an infallible guide?  If you have no assurance that you will not misinterpret the Holy Scriptures, and you admit that you do not, then what good does it do for us to know that the Word is infallible?

Of course the Catholic position is, God did leave us with an office to protect, to teach, and interpret the Scriptures, just as he did in the Old Testament.   Using the afforiorti argument (from the lesser to the greater, as St. Paul often does), we should expect at least as much from the office created by Christ for the New Covenant as from the Old.

I know you are itching to invoke John 16:13-15, but then you have to be open to the fact that the Holy Spirit is the councilor of
all the church councils?  And, remembering what Peter wrote in 2 Peter 1:20-21:

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

I am glad James at least concedes that Enoch was oral in nature.  I do not know why he bothered to argue that it is a written
document, except to distract the listeners and readers from the substance of the argument.  The prophecies of Enoch were oral
tradition.  They are still tradition; only now they are written, but retain their oral nature.  The point of the argument is that
we have Scripture pointing to relevant prophecy that is not inscripturated.  Jude also uses another non-scriptural source to
teach, the Assumption of Moses.  The writers inspired by the Spirit go outside Scripture for valid information; they use
tradition to demonstrate and teach the truth.  To put it plainly, they do not use the bible alone to write the bible.
 

Return to Catholicsource Main Page

Return to Catholicsource Articles Page