In the first part of this semester, we have been dealing
with what St. Francis has to say regarding the concepts of “mission” and the
“rule of faith.” Both concepts are rooted in the Christianity’s understanding
of authority, because the question of mission is concerned with the source of
authority, whereas the rule of faith is concerned with the exercise of
authority.
I.
Mission (By what authority?)
In the section devoted to mission, St. Francis poses the
question: From where/whom do the so-called “reformers” derive their authority
to change the substance of the faith. As a lead up to this section we looked
briefly at the two central doctrines of the Reformation and determined that, as
St. Francis contends, they constitute a definite departure from the organic
Christian Faith as it had been known up to that time. These central doctrines
are two: the doctrine that the Bible is the only authority (sola scriptura),
and the doctrine that our justification in Christ is by faith alone (sola
fides). Both of these doctrines are unbiblical and easily refuted on a
scriptural basis. For example, the doctrine of sola fides runs directly
contrary the reasoning in James 2:24 (“you see then that we are justified by
works, and not by faith alone.”) and Matthew 25, where the division of mankind into
the damned and the saved (“as a shepherd separates sheep from goats”) is made
on the basis of what individuals have done (specifically towards their
neighbors).
When it comes to mission, we should remember that the same
issue was important in the ministry of the Lord Jesus Himself. One of the
critical questions posed to Him was, “By what authority are you doing these
things?” St. John the Baptist was also similarly questioned (the Pharisees came
to him early in his ministry to ask, “who are you?” and “if you are not the
Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet, by what authority do you baptize?”). Then
too, St. John the Baptist, prompted by the doubts and concerns of some of his disciples,
sent messengers to Jesus to pose practically the same question (“Are you the
One Who Is to Come, or should we wait for another?”) In other words, to the
Jews as well as to Christians, the issue of mission (who sent you?) was
crucial.
St. Francis addresses various arguments that, if sound,
would constitute legitimate mission. He entertains the possibilities that the
reformers were sent a) by the Church, b) by the people, and c) by God Himself.
In accord with the thinking of the ancient Church, St.
Francis understand the concept of mission “from the Church” to mean “from the bishops.”
This is so, because throughout the history of the Church, she has considered
the bishop as the only person who has the authority to speak in the name of the
Church. According to the maxim of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, “where the bishop is,
there is the Church.” Thus, a Church without a bishop is regarded as a headless
and formless body, without voice and expression. This is the central premise of
the first and second Epistles of Clement, Pope of Rome to the Corinthians (both
of which are regarded as Scriptural books by some Christian Churches). We can
also see this way of thinking behind the oldest expressions of the concept of
Petrine primacy in the Church. Again, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, in the third book
of his treatise against heresies (A Refutation of Gnosis, Falsely So Called),
he witnesses to the super-ecclesial authority of the Church of Rome. Modern-day
Catholics would likely express themselves instead in a way that emphasized the
authority of the person of the Pope, the Church of Rome’s bishop. Irenaeus
would not have recognized a distinction. The Church of Rome without a bishop
has no voice, and, thus, no authority.
Nevertheless, the authority of the Pope
of Rome is derived from the Church over which he presides. He is the successor
of the Holy Apostle Peter, because he presides over the Church of Rome. This is
the reason that, in the most solemn exercise of the Church of Rome’s universal
authority, the celebration of the Liturgy at the Altar of the Confessio
(directly over the grave of the Apostle St. Peter) plays such a central role.
St Francis rather easily deals with this argument that the
reformers’ mission came from the bishops. If it were true, the bishops would
not have condemned the reformers at the Council of Trent with unanimous
acclamation (Anathema omnibus hereticis! Anathema! Anathema!)
St. Francis then deals with the second argument that the
reformers’ authority is derived from the people. St. Francis does not deal with
this directly, but the fact is that the people is not a legitimate source of
mission in any case. As we said above, if the people was a legitimate source of
mission in the Christian Church’s traditional view and mentality, then the
argument advanced by St. Clement in his first and second epistles to the Church
of Corinth would be totally erroneous. Nevertheless, St. Francis shows that the
argument is ludicrous in any case, because there were none but Catholics among
the people before the reformers convinced them to be otherwise. No, the
reformers mission clearly did not come from the people.
The third argument is that the reformers are sent by God
Himself to change the substance of the Catholic Faith. St. Francis points out
that if this is the case, it is incumbent on the reformers to demonstrate their
divine vocation by means of such as miracles. The Catholic people cannot be
expected to accept their claim that they act in the name of God without clear
and evident signs to the veracity of their claims. In other words, the
Pharisees’ demand that the Lord Jesus show them a sign from Heaven was not
perverse in itself. It was perverse in that it came posterior to innumerable
signs that had already testified that “on Him God the Father has set His seal.”
As the Lord Jesus says, “Many signs I have shown you from the Father. For which
of them do you stone Me?”
As we mentioned in class, none of the above explanations for
the mission of the early reformers would be current among contemporary Protestants.
Rather, all of them have been replaced by a new contention, namely that the
reformers received their message from “the Word of God.” It was the Bible, in
other words, that impelled the leaders of the Early Protestant movement. Due to
the Protestant view of the subjective nature of the Scriptural exegesis, this
position would not have been easy for St. Francis to refute. It does, however,
present legions of difficulties when we proceed to consider the rule of faith.
II.
The Rule of Faith
What St. Francis calls “the rule of faith” is a
comprehensive list of all of the various things that Christians have
traditionally viewed as sources of authority. At this point, we have dealt with
the first five: 1) the Holy Scripture, 2) the Apostolic Tradition, 3) the
teaching authority of the Church, 4) the Ecumenical Councils, and 5) the
consensus of the ancient Fathers of the Church. Naturally, St. Francis
recognizes that the first of these plays a pivotal role, since it is the only
one that his adversaries regard as authoritative.
St. Francis’ arguments against the reformers in regard to
the first rule of faith, the Holy Scripture, begins with the contention that
the reformers have dismembered the Scriptures by rejecting Scriptural books
that the Church has received as having been inspired by God. Central to this
argument are the books of the Deuterocanon: Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of
Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, Baruch, I Maccabees and II
Maccabees. There are also portions of other books that are included in the
Deuterocanon, which render the Book of Esther substantially different, along
with the Book of the Prophet Daniel. St. Francis points out that while it is
clear that the Deuterocanon was long disputed in the Church, nevertheless,
there is no precedent whatsoever for the acceptance of the canon that
Protestants today hold to. Thus, the sixty-six book canon of contemporary
Protestantism has no authority whatsoever. It is true that various Churches
accepted canons that were shorter than the current Catholic canon of
seventy-two books (Lamentations was considered a part of the Book of the
Prophet Jeremiah), but none of them (no council, no Church Father, no one)
accept THAT canon. Furthermore, there were plenty of canons that were longer
than seventy-two. To this day, the Orthodox Eastern Church accepts a canon
consisting of 74 books (including the books of III and IV Maccabees), while the
Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Church (Tewahedo) accept much longer canons,
including such books as Jubilees, Enoch, III and IV Esdras, Laodiceans, 1 and 2
Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc.
Unlike the 66 book canon, which rests on no authority, St.
Francis is very careful to give the lineage of the current Catholic canon in
the course of Tradition. In St. Francis’ time, the Catholic canon rested most
recently on the authority of the Council of Trent, but Francis points out that
the same, identical canon was received as authentic at the Council of Florence
(1441), and that that canon was confirmed by the Third Council of Carthage (at
which St. Augustine of Hippo was in attendance). Now, the Third Council of
Carthage was a local council, it is true, but, nevertheless, the canon that it
accepted as authentic was also accepted and confirmed by the Third Council of
Constantinople (the Sixth Ecumenical Council). This is an impressive lineage of
acceptance and confirmation, especially when compared to the sixty-six book
canon, which is not attested anywhere.
So the substance of Francis’ first argument is that the
reformers have lopped off parts of the Scripture that did not suit them. He
then proceeds to enumerate their various arguments against the canonicity of
the Deuterocanon, demolishing all of their contentions as he goes. The
arguments he points out are as follows:
1)
The manuscripts that survive are not in Hebrew
or Chaldaean. (They argue that we can now only work from translations and that
those translations are corrupt.)
2)
They are not accepted as Scripture by the Jews.
3)
They are not received as Scripture by the whole
Church.
4)
St. Jerome held that they could not be used as
the foundation for ecclesiastical doctrine.
5)
Canon Law condemns them.
6)
They are condemned also by the Gloss, which says
that they are read (but not perhaps generally).
7)
Eusebius says that they have been corrupted and
falsified.
8)
The Maccabees are particularly corrupted.
9)
The Second Book of Maccabees could not be found
in Hebrew in Jerome’s time.
10)
They contain many false and erroneous things.
The answer to 1 was obvious in St. Francis’ time, just as it
is now. The Holy Spirit has no difficulty expressing Himself in Greek, as the
whole of the New Testament shows.
The answer to 2 is equally obvious. The Church has the
authority to recognize the Scriptures, not the Jews, who reject Christ. As St.
Augustine points out, it is the Catholic Church that accepts the books of
Maccabees as Scripture, not the Jews.
Number 3 is puzzling to St. Francis, just as it is to us.
Who in the Church does not receive them? Every historical Church now receives
them. There was some doubt about them in the Early Church, but that doubt has
been resolved. To again reject them after they have been received would be
irrational.
As to 4, Jerome lived in a time when doubt still persisted
about canonicity. The Catholic Church holds that the Fathers of the Church
speak with authority when they speak with consensus. The consensus of the
Fathers is against Jerome on this point, not with him. Jerome’s opinion is,
just that, his opinion, and we now know that it is heretical.
As to 5, St. Francis has to conclude that Olivetanus really
can’t read, because the canon law of Gelasius proscribes the reading of “apocryphal
books” and then names them. Not one of the books of the Deuterocanon are there
named. They would not be, for by that time, those books were accepted and
revered by the Church.
Number 6, referring to the Gloss, is also misread, because
that work refers to “apocryphal books,” but what it means is books that have
uncertain authorship. It names the Book of Judges as an apocryphal book. The
books of the Deuterocanon, on the other hand, it clearly states are read in
Church. Period.
The situation that Eusebius is describing to which number 7
refers does not destroy the authority of the books in question. On the
contrary, the enemies of the Church have tried to corrupt ALL the Scriptures.
They have not succeeded.
Number 8 asserts that the Books of Maccabees have been
corrupted. St. Francis denies it. We deny it. The reformers had no evidence to
support the assertion then; their followers do not now.
Number 9 hold that Jerome could not find Second Maccabees in
Hebrew. So? According to literary genre, it is a letter in Greek to the Jewish
community in Alexandria. The Holy Spirit is perfectly competent to express
Himself in Greek. If that were not the case, we would be questioning the
authenticity and canonicity of all 27 books of the New Testament.
Number 10 says that the books of the Deuterocanon are full of
false and erroneous things. Did the Council of Carthage (including St.
Augustine), which accepted them, fail to notice that? Did the other authorities
and holy synods in the history of the Church from the very earliest times fail
to notice all the false and erroneous things in the books of the Deuterocanon?
It is not that the books of the Deuterocanon are full of false and erroneous
things, but rather that the reformers are interested in rejecting doctrine that
has been known to be a part of the Christian Faith since the days of the Early
Church.
With Olivetanus’ (many of which are still used today) arguments
lying in ruins, St. Francis turns to the Huguenot profession of faith given
before the King of France, in which they speak of receiving the interior
persuasion of the Holy Spirit to discern what is Scripture and what isn’t. They
flee, in other words, to the purely interior and subjective. Francis then
proceeds by a series of argument to show that the “interior persuasion of the
Holy Spirit” is not reliable. If it were, Luther would not reject the Epistle
of James, while Calvin receives it. Interior persuasion is slippery slope. The
author of this study guide once had a Scripture professor (an Anglican priest)
who refused to accept that the longer ending of St. Mark’s Gospel was
Scripture. He also rejected the story in John 8 regarding the woman taken in
adultery. Are his “interior persuasions” wrong? Who says?
What follows are several chapters that go into inaccuracies,
which St. Francis found in translations prepared by the reformers in vulgar
tongues. Many of the inaccuracies, St. Francis points out, actually serve the
reformers’ theological positions. The Catholic Church does not reject the idea
of translations being made into vernacular languages, but those translations
have to be approved by the bishops. Quoting St. Paul, St, Francis argues that
Scripture is “as sharp as any two edged sword.” It would irresponsible to give
such a sword to people without first teaching them how to use it properly.
Otherwise, they might well harm themselves or others.
No comments:
Post a Comment