#11 The Facts On Roman Catholicism
 

    Doctrinally, the Roman Catholic Church has traditionally taught that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and Catholics continue to maintain that they have the highest regard for Scripture. Rev. John A. O'Brien of Notre Dame University writes, "Far from being hostile to the Bible, the Catholic Church is its true mother. . .The simple fact is that the Catholic Church loves the Bible, reveres it as the inspired word of God, gives to it a loyalty and intelligent obedience greater than that of any other religious body in the world . . . - a loyalty of which history knows no parallel.@
  But this position was compromised at Vatican II, which restricted biblical inerrancy to a more narrow spectrum of biblical teaching and also allowed for further encroachment of neo-orthodoxy. In effect, the Church now holds to a position of "limited inerrancy": Scripture is inerrant, but not all of it. (Exactly where it is and is not inerrant is left for the interpreter to decide, an example of "private judgment@ the Church claims it rejects.)
    Regardless, in practice, even the traditional view of inerrancy had long been compromised by (1) the Church's acceptance of the Apocrypha, (2) a belief in inerrant Tradition, and (3) the claim that the Church alone properly interprets Scripture.
 

1. The Apocrypha undermines inerrancy.
    Catholicism teaches that Scripture involves more than the Old Testament canon accepted by the Jews, Jesus, and the Church of the first four centuries, i.e., the 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament. It adds new portions to the books of Esther and Daniel plus seven additional books, which were written between the Testaments: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Ben Sirach, (also called Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and Wisdom. The Catholic Church refers to these extra books as "deuterocanonical works@ - those that are canonical or scripture for Catholics but which were never part of the Jewish Bible.
    The Apocrypha undermines a doctrine of inerrancy because these books contain historical and other errors. Thus, if the Apocrypha is considered Scripture, this identifies error with God's Word. This is why neither the Jews, Jesus, the apostles, nor most of the early Church fathers ever accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture.
    Biblical scholar Dr. Rene Pache comments, "Except for certain interesting historical information (especially in 1 Maccabees) and a few beautiful moral thoughts (e.g., Wisdom of Solomon), these books contain absurd legends and platitudes, and historical, geographical and chronological errors, as well as manifestly heretical doctrines; they even recommend immoral acts (Judith 9:10,13).@ Errors in the Apocrypha are frequently pointed out in standard works. For example,
 

Tobit. . .contains certain historical and geographical errors such as the assumption that Sennacherib was the son of Shalmaneser (1:15) instead of Sargon II, and that Nineveh was captured by Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus (14:5) instead of by Nabopolassar and Cyaxares. . .Judith cannot possibly be historical because of the glaring errors it contains. . .[In 2 Maccabees] there are also numerous disarrangements and discrepancies in chronological, historical, and numerical matters in the book, reflecting ignorance or confusion...
 

    For 1,500 years no Roman Catholic was required to believe that the Apocrypha was Scripture, until the Council of Trent made its fateful decree. Unfortunately, the Council adopted its position "for reasons of expediency rather than evidence.@ Thus, it was "unmindful of evidence, of former popes and scholars, of the Fathers of the church and the witness of Christ and the apostles@ in making its decision to include the Apocrypha as Scripture.
    Dr. Pache points out that one of the reasons Trent accepted the Apocrypha was merely in response to the arguments of the Reformers who were attempting to defend the principle of "sola scripture@ - that the Bible alone is the believer's authority.
    Why, them, did Rome take so new and daring a position? Because, confronted by the Reformers, she lacked arguments to justify her unscriptural deviations. She declared that Apocryphal books supported such doctrines as prayers for dead (II Maccabees 12:44); the expiatory sacrifice (eventually to become the Mass, II Maccabees 12:39-46); alms giving with expiatory value, also leading to deliverance from death (Tobit 12:9; Tobit 4:10); invocation and intercession of the saints (II Maccabees 15:14; Baruch 3:4); the worship of angels (Tobit 12:12); purgatory; and the redemption of souls after death (II Maccabees 12:42,46).
 

2. Catholic Tradition undermines inerrancy.
    As noted before, Catholicism accepts sacred Tradition as having divine authority: Vatican II emphasized that Catholic Scripture and Tradition "form one sacred deposit of the word of God.@ Thus, "both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.@ Karl Keating thinks that ". . .the trouble of [the] fundamentalist [e.g., evangelical] is that he labors under the misconception that Scripture has the last word...@ and that Tradition "counts for nothing.@
    Of course, biblically, there is nothing wrong with tradition. Even Scripture acknowledges its usefulness, but only when it is based upon apostolic teaching (e.g., 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6) or not in conflict with Scripture itself. When tradition reflects the truths of Scripture, this is fine. But when it denies and opposes God's word in the Bible, we have a problem.
    Catholic Tradition comprises a massive body of literature - the teachings of the early Fathers, historic creeds, the writings of Church scholars and leaders, laws given by synods and councils, papal decrees, etc. Today, one of the Catholic Church's normal functions is to continue this refinement of doctrine and practice.
    Several problem are created by the Church's claim that this mass of data is, in some sense, necessary for salvation and/or infallible. First, there is the insuperable difficulty in authoritatively determining where infallible Tradition lies. As Keating confesses, "The big problem, no doubt, is determining what constitutes authentic tradition.@ Second, the large amount of data itself poses a problem. Papal "Bulls,@ or written communications from or authorized by the pope, from 450-1850 alone comprise more than 40 volumes. This has led to "almost inextricable difficulties@ for Catholic theologians. Third, problems relating to the fact of errors, demonstrable self-contradictions, and even denials of biblical teaching are inescapable. Fourth, contradictory Tradition and differences in the historical interpretation of Tradition have plagued the claim to infallibility. For example, even popes have disagreed on such subjects as religious freedom, the validity of civil marriages, the legitimacy of Bible reading, the order of the Jesuits, Galileo's scientific data, and other topics. On rare occasion, popes have even sided with heresy, as did Pope Liberius (reigned from 352 to 366) when he accepted the Arians who rejected Christ's deity (cf. Zozimus and the Pelagians, Honorius I and the Monothelites, or Vigilius and the Monphysites and Nestorians).
    Finally, when any other source of authority is put on par with Scripture, Scripture usually becomes secondary. According to Keating, "Fundamentalists say the Bible is the sole rule of faith. . .Catholics, on the other hand, say the Bible is not the sole rule of faith and that nothing in the Bible suggests it was meant to be. "However, we need only read Church history to discover that when another source of authority is placed alongside Scripture as of equal importance, Scripture eventually becomes relegated to the background.@
    If Catholic Tradition were, in fact, "inerrant@ and A sacred,@ then it would not deny Scripture. Perhaps this explains why many of the Church's unscriptural doctrines were added in the midst of debate and dissension among Catholics themselves. For example, at the Council of Trent not all participants thought it credible that the Apocrypha was Scripture. And, at the first Vatican council, not all present believed the Pope should be considered infallible.
 

3. Catholic interpretation undermines inerrancy.
    In The Documents of Vatican II, under the category of "Revelation,@ we find the following:
 

The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [i.e., Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living, teaching office of the Church. . .
 

    The Catholic Church allocates to itself the sole power to properly interpret the Catholic Bible and Tradition. The Protestant view of an individual's right to devoutly interpret the Bible by diligent study (2 Timothy 2:15) and under the illumination of the Holy Spirit is rejected as false.
    Keating claims that the evangelicals= understanding of the Bible as the sole authority is irrational because "the individual is the least solid of all interpreters.@ He believes the only manner in which we can know the Bible really is inspired is if an infallible Church tells us it is.
    Of course, we must ask the question - is the Catholic Church truly infallible? Is its Tradition inerrant? Does it always interpret the Bible correctly? It claim so. This is why Keating and other Catholics refer to "the authoritative and infallible Church@ and "the fact of an infallible teaching Church.@ But where is the evidence?
    It is important here to understand what the Catholic Church means by infallible. Infallibility is officially defined as "immunity from error, excluding not only its existence, but even its possibility.@ This infallibility extends not only to the Pope in matters of faith and morals, but also to the bishops in teaching and, by implication, interpretation. But, as history proves, the Roman Catholic Church has not been infallible - despite its claims. As Hans Kung, a well-respected but dissident Catholic theologian, points out, "The errors of the Ecclesiastical teaching office in every generation have been numerous and indisputable...And yet the teaching office constantly found it difficult to admit these errors frankly and honestly...@
  Consider modern example. Most Catholic literature contains the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimaturs, Church seals that designate authority. They are defined as a "declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error.@ Yet The Catholic Encyclopedia, which contains these seals, teaches the following demonstrable errors:
 

    The Catholic Encyclopedia also includes positive reviews of the Hindu practice of Transcendental Meditation, the religious of Islam, and the destructive approach to Scripture known as Form Criticism. Such teachings indicate that The Catholic Encyclopedia is not free from doctrinal and spiritual errors.
    Book such as Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism, which seek to critique evangelical Christianity from the perspective of Catholic dogma, have this problem in common: Catholic doctrine precedes exegesis. The Bible is interpreted primarily in light of Church doctrine and not its own teachings. Where the Bible conflicts with Catholic dogma, no appeal to Scripture is sufficient because in the end, Scripture is not the final authority - only what the Church interprets and teaches is the final authority.
    The fact that "infallible@ popes have consistently upheld unbiblical Roman Catholic doctrine proves that it is Catholic doctrine derived from Tradition which interprets the Bible, and not standard principles of exegesis.
    In other words, while Tradition has authority over Scripture, the teaching office of the Church has authority over Tradition because it decides what Tradition is (and thus what Scripture is) and how to properly interpret them both. This is why Catholics hold that it is their Tradition that "gives life to Scripture.@
  This also tells us why, in a very real sense, Church Tradition is considered necessary for salvation: "Magisterium of the Church is the power given by Christ to the Church together with infallibility by which the Church teaches authoritatively the revealed truth of the Scripture and holds forth the truth of tradition for salvation.@
    Unfortunately, Rome has left her Church without the divinely given means to determine truth from error - namely the inerrant authority of the Scriptures alone. The Church itself becomes the standard of truth in whatever it teaches or does, and thus there is no higher authority to which it must submit or standard by which it must be judged.
    In conclusion, by (1) adding the errant Apocrypha to the canon, (2) accepting errant Tradition as divine revelation, (3) claiming that proper interpretation of Scripture/Tradition resides only in the Catholic Church, and (4) asserting infallibility for itself, the Catholic Church has effectively undermined the inerrancy and authority of the Bible.
 

John Ankerberg & John Weldon