Tips for Apologetics: Using Scripture

My previous offering on this subject may have given the impression that I don't think that the magisterium or coucils are important. Or perhaps it gave the impression that I'm embarrassed about such things and wish to keep them in the shadows.  Far from it. I just think that appealing to some unknown authority is not helpful.  However, it's important to have these source available and at some point it's critical to bring them up.   The magisterium is the critical element of the Catholic Church. It is the embodiment of apostolic succession, so at some point it's critical to establish that the Pope and councils speak with authority.

That brings up an issue with interpreting scripture.  If you listen to Catholic Answers on the radio, you'll hear a lot of arguing about scripture. Catholic Answers is largely staffed with former Protestants and a significant part of their ministry involves debating Protestants.  Scripture is common ground between Catholics and Protestants so it seems logical to argue the Catholic position from scripture.

A typical exchange will go like this:

Caller: Why do you Catholics wear robes in Mass when 1 Philippines 25:13 says not to? Are you ignorant or what?
Apologist: Oh yeah? Well what about Romanians 13:45 where it says the only way to get to heaven is to wear robes when in the sanctuary? Can't you read?
Caller: Oh yeah? Well if you had a real Bible you'd see that Revolutions chapter 45 is entirely devoted to polyester robes being the tool of the devil and cotton robes are for fools and knaves.
Apologist: Bullcrap!  That passage is widely misinterpreted! In the original German it clearly refers to wearing robes in the swimming pool, which anyone would agree with!

 There are a couple of problems with this exchange.  First of all, it reinforces the common atheist objection that the Bible is riddled with errors and contradictions.  We're trying to establish that the Bible is inerrant, when properly understood, not that we should prefer one verse (which agrees with our position) over another (which doesn't).  That's what liberal Catholics do.

Another problem is that these arguments assume that the Bible is the last word on every issue.  Sola Scriptura is the Protestant position and while it's clever to use scripture to refute sola scriptura, it's essentially conceding the argument before you start.

Another problem is that such arguments eventually center around how one word or phrase is interpreted.  The example above is clearly made up, but an actual argument that I've hear many times goes like this:

Caller: Why do you say that Peter is the Pope and leader of the apostles and the Pope retains that charism?
Apologist: Because in Matthew 16 Jesus says to Simon "You are rock (Peter) and on this rock I will build My Church."
Caller: But the Greek work there is petros, and petros means "pebble". Clearly Jesus was dismissing Peter. He was saying "You are nothing, but on THIS rock I will build my Church" The rock he was referring to was the faith of His followers.
Apologist: That's not true. Scolars have established clearly that "petros" meant "rock" and Jesus only changes from "petra" to "petros" because of the gender. He could hardly call Peter (a man) a female rock.
Caller: If you had a real Bible you'd know better than to say such nonsense.

I don't like that chain of discussion because it seems so inaccessible.  Jesus did express pleasure that His message was available to simple people and hidden from the wise.  It's hard to think of an argument more wooly than arguing over whether a given Greek work means "rock" or "pebble" given the dialect and era of it's usage.  I'm not a linguist and sometimes have a hard time explaining what English words mean.  (That's a true statement: I once took on a volunteer duty of helping a Vietnamese nun understand written materials for a class she was taking and I needed to keep my dictionary handy to not only explain what some words meant but the connotations associated with it. Including words I frequently use but was baffled by when I had to translate them into simpler English words.)

However, if it's a interminable academic exercise to explain what a specific word in a specific foreign language meant at a specific time in history, it's relatively easy to demonstrate how people of the age dealt with it.  So, instead of arguing over rocks and pebbles, how about arguing about how the apostles and early Church dealt with Peter and his successors in Rome? That's a matter of historical fact which cannot be easily refuted.  That's also the Catholic position: we base our beliefs not only on scripture, but on the apostolic tradition.  So we care about what the Bible says, but we also care about how the early Church understood what the Bible said.  We don't base our faith on how a single word is translated, we base our faith on how the Bible in it's entirety has been lived throughout history.  The Bible is inerrant, when understood properly. And we know how to understand it properly because we know how it was historically understood by the people who lived with Jesus and the people who followed them.

 Getting back to the 1st (fictional) example.  Scriptural literalists, including atheists seeking to undermine the authority of scripture, can find lots of conflicting passages. But Catholics shouldn't be bothered by that because we have the interpretive key: the actions and words of the early Church fathers.  It's critical to realize that not only did they live the faith, but they passed it on.  We know how they explained it to their contemporaries.  We have detailed apologetic tracts from Justin Martyr and Irenaeus and the rest.  They had to put the faith into words that others could understand. So we can see how they interpreted and passed on the Bible. And that helps us understand how the various passages are to be interpreted today.