The Vatican Files N. 4 – Reformation21.
For several months now Reformation21 has been doing a series on 21st century Roman Catholicism. It has been an interesting and though-provoking series of articles. I have not referenced them before (though I have referred to “Ref21” many times here), but wanted to do so now, because the latest article contains what is at the heart of the difference between Roman Catholicism and true Protestantism. That is their view of the Bible. As you will see from this article, “Word of the Lord and/or Word of the Church?”, penned by Leonardo De Chirico, Rome continues to make some significant declarations about the Bible which reveal she has not changed much since the days before and during the great Reformation. Which is why we Protestants must stay where we are – standing on the infallibly inspired Word of God given us in sacred Scripture. And insisting that we have the right before God to read and interpret His holy Word – privately as priests in the office of believer, as well as publicly as members of Christ’s church under the ministry of the Word.
Here is a section of the article; read it carefully and fully at the link above – you will have to put your thinking-caps on! Nothing wrong with that. Remember, every believer is a theologian! And you want to be good, sound ones!
Secondly, the “eccesial” reading of the Bible. According to VD, Scripture must never be read on one’s own. Reading must be always an “ecclesial experience”, i.e. something done in communion with the Church. The issue at stake is not only methodological, as if private readings were to be replaced by study groups at a parish level presided over by a priest, but also hermeneutical. “An authentic interpretation of the Bible must always be in harmony with the faith of the Catholic Church” (30). Reading the Bible needs to be an exercise done in accordance with the institutional church, both in its forms and outcomes. Apparently, there is much wisdom in these statements, especially considering the real risks of fancy, individualistic, awkward interpretations by isolated readers of the Bible. Yet, there is something missing here. For a Church that has forbidden for centuries the reading of the Bible in vernacular languages, it is at least unfortunate that not a single word of repentance is offered. For a Church that has prevented the people from having access to the Bible until fifty years ago, it is at least puzzling that not a single word is spent to underline the Church’s need for self-correction and vigilance. Moreover, if reading the Bible must always be done under the rule of the institution, what happens if the institution itself is caught in error, heresy or apostasy? How does the Spirit correct a sinful church if not by the biblical Word? In the history of the Church, the teaching of the Bible had to sometimes be played against the institutional church and against its consensus. Only a self-proclaimed indefectible Church can ask total submission to “the watchful eye of the sacred magisterium” (45) without having a final, ultimate bar. Here at stake is the question: Who has the final word? The Bible or the RC Church? Since the Church is “the home of the word” (52), VD responds: the latter!
The Three R's Blog 