Dr. Michael Barber explains why “Sola Ecclesia” is an imprecise description of Catholicism, opting instead for “Solo Christus,” and then lays out why Catholics do not need the Church to infallibly declare every single correct interpretation of Scripture for them.
Transcript:
Host: We’ll go to Sabian in Santa Barbara, California, listening on Immaculate Heart Radio. Sabian, are you with us?
Caller: Yeah, I’m here, how you doing, Dr. Barber and Cy?
Host: Very good, thank you.
Dr. Barber: We’re great, thanks for calling in.
Caller: All right, so I have a question that you kind of touched on already. My question was, how do I–I wanna better polish my argument, cause I heard James White bring it up one time, when he was making the claim that we are “Sola Ecclesia,” because we interpret what tradition is, we interpret what Scripture is, therefore we are only about the Pope and not about the other two pillars that we hold to. And also, how can we, as Catholics, better defend…when we talk to Protestants about Scripture, and say, “Well that’s–you’re taking that out of context,” when they’ll come back to it with an argument that says, “Well, how can you tell me that, the Church infallibly defines what the Scripture means,” how can I refute that argument right there? So these are my two questions, Dr. Barber.
Dr. Barber: Okay, let’s get back to the second one in a minute, but let’s talk about the first one. Is the Church–does the Church actually believe in “Sola Ecclesia?” Actually, I would say, if you really wanna be precise, the Church actually is even more focused–the Church is ultimately, I would say, focused on the Son. So I would say, if anything, for Catholics, we want to focus on Christ Himself. But if we want to be fair about that, we should recognize that Christ is not just the individual person of Jesus, but, as Augustine and the fathers long noted, Christ–the whole Christ–would include the Church. So I think it might be problematic to say–well, it would be wrongheaded to think that we only should look to a text, and not to Christ, and not to the Church.
So I would push back and say, well, I think maybe, you know, White, or maybe somebody else–I haven’t heard White, so I don’t want to–I haven’t heard White on this particular point, so I don’t want to misrepresent what he’s saying, I may not fully understand what his argument is there–but I would want to make the case for us as Catholics that we are “Solo Christus.” I mean, we want to focus on Christ Himself, and Christ is understood also in terms of His body, and so I think it’s a huge problem when you say you should interpret Scripture apart from His mystical body, the Church. So that’s how I would respond to that particular line of thought, we could talk a lot more about that, obviously.
But let me try to understand the second point that you were trying to make. How do we respond….can you follow up with that? I sort of lost the thread.
Caller: Oh yeah, it’s the argument of when I hear Protestants say, “Well how can you tell me that I’m reading the Scriptures wrong when your Church hasn’t infallibly told us that this is what the Scripture means?” So how can I tell them, “This is not in the light of tradition according to the Church,” when they’re Protestant and the Church hasn’t, you know, dogmatically, or whatever, however you want to say it, said that this is what this Bible passage stands for, and what it means?
Dr. Barber: Right, well, let’s be clear about this, right? The Catholic Church has always recognized that it’s not necessary for the Church to officially or infallibly define something in order for Catholics to believe it. Going back to the argument I think you were explaining from White, I think some people actually have this kind of strange view of the Catholic Church, and actually I don’t think it’s just Protestants, I think some Catholics have this view too, you might call it “Magisteriology,” right? Where we think that what constitutes Catholic teaching is SIMPLY defined by Church doctrine, or Church statements.
But you know, we don’t ever read the encyclicals of John Paul II in Mass; we never read the writings of Thomas Aquinas in Mass; we read Sacred Scripture. We read the Old Testament and we read the New Testament. And the Church is just fine for us to hear those words in Sacred Scripture, and for us to reflect on them, interpret them, and to, you know, follow what we think makes the most sense out of those statements. So sometimes the Church will intervene and say “No, wait a minute, here’s a boundary over here, that particular view is out of bounds,” but I think most of the time–you know, as someone who went to Azusa Pacific University as a Catholic, and then I got my PhD at Fuller Theological Seminary as a Catholic, you know, we have a lot more common ground with our non-Catholic brothers and sisters when it comes to interpreting Scripture than maybe a lot of people want to make it out to be.
So just because the Church hasn’t officially defined some particular teaching in Scripture, that doesn’t mean that Catholics are, somehow, you know, adrift at sea and not really clear on what the Lord is trying to communicate to us, right? I mean, the Catholic Church does not need to come out, the Pope does not need to come out tomorrow and teach infallibly, “Thou shalt not murder.” It’s clear! That’s one of the Ten Commandments. The Pope doesn’t need to do that. He only does that in cases where there’s some tremendous debate or confusion. Otherwise, Scripture should be, you know, interpreted reasonably and responsibly by Catholics.