Expert: Fr. Timothy Johnson - 10/4/2008

Question
QUESTION: Hi Father,
What is the historical origin of Sola Scriptura?

As a corollary to this, a friend of mine points to a passage in the bible which supports the idea of Sola Scriptura: Revelations 22:18-19
Could you help explain how catholics could disagree with Sola Scriptura in light of this?

ANSWER: Hi, Jesse:
Thanks for the question.
The historical origin of "Sola Scriptura" comes mostly out of the movement of the Protestant Revolution in Europe back at the time of Martin Luther and others who were caught up in this.  The mind set was one of grasping for some kind of justification or rationalization for novel ideas that departed in many cases quite radically from historical traditional Catholic Doctrines.  They pitted the "Bible" against the "Church" established by Christ; they also made an artificial separation between "Christ" and His Bride, the Church.  They tried to make it seem as though their use of the Bible demonstrated that the Church was wrong and had fallen into error in her teachings and doctrines, in spite of Jesus' words that the gates of hell would not prevail against her.
Their use of the Bible was based on an underlying principle of "privation interpretation" by the individual of what he/she felt was the true meaning of particular passages.  The problem with this is that while it attempts to trump the Bible as the sole authority, in reality one's own private understanding becomes the sole authority.  The Church, founded and commissioned by Christ, was given the Authority of the Holy Spirit and God's guidance in the Truth thorughout the ages (Gospel of John, Jesus' Prayers for the unity of the Church, and the promise of the Holy Spirit the Comforter).  It was the very guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Authority of the Church invested by Christ that has given us the guarantee of the Divine Inspiration of the Books that compose the whole of all the Books included in the Canon of Sacred Scripture.
Revelation 22 speaks only to the one book, Revelation.  There are 45 other Books in addition to this one that comprise the complete compilation of Scripture in the Bible.  And it in light of what I presented above, it is important to remember the admonition in one of the Epistles of St. Peter that tells us that "no scripture is of a private interpretation..."

Fr. Timothy Johnson

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hi Father Timothy,

Thank you for answering this question. I was wondering, what are you referring to when you say "they also made an artificial separation between 'Christ' and His Bride, the Church." What is the artificial separation you are speaking of? Also, when I read Rev. 22:19-20, it references a scripture in Deuteronomy 4:1-4 where Moses is saying (2) Do not add to or subtract from these commmands I am giving you. Just obey the commands of the Lord your God that I am giving you. How does this relate to the scripture in Revelations?

Answer
Hi, Becca:
Thanks for the questions and comments...
By the term artificial separation between Christ and His Bride the Church, I mean to say that most Protestants will make the claim that one can have Christ without and apart from the Church.  At some very significant level they are claiming that Christ did not in fact really build up or fashion the Church, and that the Church is really a man-made entity.  But it is important to see the connection between the word Christ used when He told St. Peter that upon this rock He was building His Church, and the word used in Genesis when God "fshioned" or "built up" Eve for Adam from His rib: bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh.  The Church is something fashioned by Christ, and He is truly the Bridegroom, and the Church is the Bride.  So it can be said: you can't have the Church without Christ, vice-versa; nor Eve without Adam;; nor Jesus without Mary.
Your point about Revelation is excellent - I would suspect that something of the analysis you present is probably in the writings of a few, or at least one Church Father.  I would say that the language is most certainly the language of COVENANT, isn't it?

Fr. Timothy Johnson