Evangelicals and Roman Catholics: Sola Scriptura and Papal Infallibility
This is Part 6 of a continuing series on the relationship between evangelicals and Roman Catholics. I am now discussing areas of doctrinal conflict between these two groups. In my last post, I discussed the disagreement over the inclusion of the Apocrypha into the canon of Scripture by Roman Catholics. Today, I will briefly consider the evangelical doctrine of sola scriptura and the Roman Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility.
Regarding the limits of the infallible authority of Scripture, the Reformation stressed two principles: sola Scriptura (the Bible alone) and sola fide (faith alone). Evangelicals affirm these principles and Catholics deny them (when appropriately defined). Sola Scriptura, to evangelicals, means that the Bible is a direct revelation from God, it is the sufficient and final written authority of God, it is clear, and that Scripture interprets Scripture. The Council of Trent emphatically proclaimed that the Bible alone is not sufficient for faith and morals; tradition is also needed. The Church must provide infallible guidance in interpreting the Bible. Importantly, contrary to the claims of the Catholic Church, evangelicals claim no infallible teaching magisterium is necessary to interpret Scripture.
Evangelicals reject the Catholic teaching on the grounds that the Bible itself teaches sola Scriptura. If not explicitly and formally, at least implicitly and informally (e.g., see 2 Timothy 3:16-17). All apostolic “traditionsâ€, allegedly required by the Roman Catholic Church, may be found in the Bible and we need not search outside the Scripture for additional guidance. By way of clarification, Protestants do not hold that we can learn nothing from sources outside Scripture, only that these outside authorities should not be afforded infallible status.
Evangelicals also reject the Catholic claim that the church “determined†the canon of scripture, arguing that the church merely discovered the canon God had determined by inspiring certain books. This question of authority is a crucial difference between Catholics and Protestants.
The Catholic dogma of the infallibility of the Pope, pronounced at Vatican I in 1870 is a major area of disagreement between Catholics and evangelicals. Roman Catholic scholars claim that the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, as the official interpreter of faith and morals. Evangelicals argue that the texts used to support this dogma fall far short of their intended use by Catholics (see Matthew 16:18, John 11:49-52 and John 21:15-17). All the apostles and prophets, not just Peter, serve as the foundation of the Church, Christ himself being the cornerstone. Nowhere in scripture is Peter given the unique authority among the apostles claimed by Catholic teaching. There is certainly no reference to any alleged infallibility possessed by Peter. In fact, Peter at one time misled believers and had to be rebuked by Paul (Galatians 2:11). Additionally, whatever apostolic powers Peter possessed, it is clear they were not passed on to others after his death, since to be an apostle one must have been an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ and show certain “signs of an apostle†(2 Corinthians 2:12).
There are other theological problems with papal infallibility, such as the problem of heretical popes. The Catholic claim that we need infallible guidance to understand the infallible revelation is problematic, as well. How is an infallible interpretation any better than the infallible revelation? Evangelicals claim that the essential truths of Scripture can be understood by any literate person. When Catholics counter that a Papal error was not made when the Pope was speaking ex cathedra, evangelicals assert that Papal infallibility dies the “death of a thousand qualifications†and becomes just as fallible as any human teaching when we cannot know when the pope actually speaks ex cathedra.
Next, more important differences in evangelical and Catholic teaching.