The Living Voice of ‘Whatever We Say’

 To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it,Ignatius of Loyola, Thirteenth Rule

As we start this blog, number 41 in the Sola Scriptura series, I am struck by the quote above from Ignatius of Loyola, the creator of the Jesuit order within the Catholic Church. This is slightly different from the one given in Webster’s book, but it is no less stunning and relevant for the topic at hand. 

In the last two blogs, I showed that the appeal to the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’ by both Trent and Vatican I, is beginning to be ignored altogether. In this blog, we will see why. In the past, Catholicism used this phrase in an attempt to appeal to the past, specifically the Church fathers, as a basis to justify some of the beliefs demanded by the Church for her parishioners to faithfully and obediently believe in, even though there is no biblical or historical basis for these beliefs. I also examined both Matthew 16:18 about Peter being the ‘rock’ and the assumption of Mary to demonstrate that any appeal to the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’ revealed that there was nothing in the early Church to appeal to. 

In this blog, I will show that Rome has known for quite some time that ‘unanimous consent’ for many of her beliefs was completely missing from the historical records of the Church. 

The Birth of the Living Voice

Catholicism, with a positive reference, and Protestantism, with a negative one, will refer to something called, ‘viva voce’ which is translated from Latin as ‘with the living voice.’ Its technical meaning is, ‘expressed or conducted by means of speech.’ It is a type of understanding of tradition, which is a concept that has been the subject of quite a few entries in this series. For the Protestant it has developed the slang of meaning, ‘whatever we say,’ when attempting to make sense of the Catholic understanding and usage of the term, or as applied to doctrines that cannot be demonstrated to have existed for large timeframes within the history of the Church. 

As Protestantism continually challenged Catholicism and its constant usage of ‘unanimous consent’ as their reasoning for doctrines that cannot be found in the pages of Scripture, the Catholic Church in the late 19th century began to adopt a new theory proposed by John Henry Newman known as doctrinal development. It had originally been put forward by Vincent of Lerins (d. c. 455 AD), as documented in Tradition as Interpretation: Unanimous Consent. Newman came to a similar conclusion as Vincent, but unlike Vincent, he saw that unanimous consent was unworkable because there was practically no unanimous consent throughout the history of the church for the beliefs the Catholic Church was creating and calling dogma, like the assumption of Mary and the infallibility of the pope. 

Quoting Newman, 

It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem. [1] [emphasis added]

Basically, Newman admitted that the unanimous consent appealed to by both Trent and Vatican I did not exist and trying to utilize doctrinal development was as troublesome as trying to use unanimous consent. Undeterred, the Roman Catholic Church embraced the concept, 

But to circumvent the lack of patristic witness for the distinctive Roman Catholic dogmas, Newman set forth his theory of development, which was embraced by the Roman Catholic Church. Ironically, this is a theory which, like unanimous consent, has its roots in the teaching of Vincent of Lerins, who also promulgated a concept of development. While rejecting Vincent’s rule of universality, antiquity and consent, Rome, through Newman, once again turned to Vincent for validation of its new theory of tradition and history. But while Rome and Vincent both use the term development, they are miles apart in their understanding of the meaning of the principle because Rome’s definition of development and Vincent’s are diametrically opposed to one another. 

Rome’s New and Novel Concept of Tradition: Living Tradition – Christian Resources [emphasis added]

Unlike Newman, Vincent taught that doctrinal development had to be rooted in unanimous consent and that it must also have been taught throughout Church history. If there was to be development in a doctrine, it had to have historical roots. For Vincent, teachings had to come from Scripture and the ‘universal teaching of the Church,’ otherwise, it should be rejected and considered to be heretical. And Vincent used his own theory to criticize heretics like Coelestius and Pelagius for denying original sin as a novel doctrine because these two heretics could not demonstrate historical continuity for their views. [2] 

The Implementation

Where Newman was at least attempting to harmonize his concept of doctrinal development with Catholic teachings, Rome began pushing forward a new concept of tradition. It became a concept that was unrecognizable from that of Vincent and the councils of Trent and Vatican I. But it does seem to have been Newman that pushed Catholicism to embrace and then move beyond his original concept of doctrinal development. No longer does she need to limit herself within the bounds of history to seek validation from the past for her beliefs. Which means, nothing the Catholic Church teaches today needs to have been explicitly taught by the early Church.  

For instance, Newman understood that justification as defined at the Council of Trent was new and not as taught in the early Church. In addition, his study of the fathers revealed to him that the early Church fathers made Scripture the basis of their belief. But Rome has moved well beyond that now because there is far too much evidence today that she teaches doctrines and dogmas which were unknown in the early Church. Webster pointed out that,  

In fact, Roman Catholic historians readily admit that doctrines such as the assumption of Mary and papal infallibility were completely unknown to the early Church. If Rome now teaches the doctrine we are told that the early Church actually believed and taught it implicitly and only later, after many centuries, did it become explicit. Rome has replaced the concept of tradition as development with what is known as ‘living tradition,’ a concept that promotes the Church as an infallible authority, indwelt by the Holy Spirit who allegedly protects her from error. Therefore whatever she teaches at any point in time must be true even if it lacks historical or biblical support. [3] [emphasis added] 

And if you think this cannot possibly be true, here are the words of Karl Keating, a Catholic apologist, 

Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true. [4] [emphasis added] 

The circular reasoning of that statement is staggering! But let’s set that aside for the moment. At one point, the patristic principle (think: how the earliest of Church fathers taught) was that everything was to be proven from Scripture, and we saw that clearly in earlier blogs in this series. Next, for the Catholic Church, tradition meant that a doctrinal teaching not found in Scripture was handed down orally from the apostles through history to the Church today. But as you can see from Keating’s statement, Rome seems to have abandoned that for its newfound ability to redefine it to mean that truth today is ‘whatever she says.’ Rome would seem to have the right and the authority to anathematize tomorrow, a truth that she demands you believe today. This new definition makes the concept of old ‘tradition’ null and void. Rome now believes she has the right to develop traditions in her teachings without a precedent or an appeal to the past. 

The same sort of justification is given by the Roman Catholic theologian and cardinal, Yves Congar (1904-1995), who wrote this, 

In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare. In fact, a complete consensus is unnecessary: quite often, that which is appealed to as sufficient for dogmatic points does not go beyond what is encountered in the interpretation of many texts. But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical.

This instance, selected from a number of similar ones, shows first that the Fathers cannot be isolated from the Church and its life. They are great, but the Church surpasses them in age, as also by the breadth and richness of its experience. It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity. [5] [emphasis added] 

As was noted in the previous blog, Authority Claims of Rome – Catholic Apologists, this should put him at odds with both Trent and Vatican I, since both taught that their decisions were based upon the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers,’ which came from the interpretation of Scripture by the fathers and was well documented. But even Congar seems to have understood that some Church doctrines were not exactly what was portrayed by those two councils, since there was little to no documentation for the beliefs they made dogmas. As Webster rightly stated, 

The Church of the patristic age interpreted this passage [Matthew 16:16-18] in a way that did not agree with the teaching of a later age. In other words, Vatican I was not in agreement with the fathers of the patristic age because they did not teach papal primacy.

According to Congar, however, the problem is not a problem because it can be circumvented by a different understanding of consensus. The fathers must be interpreted in light of present day teaching. Congar says: ‘The Fathers cannot be isolated from the Church and its life.’ And by the Church and its life, he means the Roman Church of today. He says: ‘It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity.’ In other words, all that matters is what the Church teaches now. This is the criterion for truth and Tradition because the Church is living and Tradition is living. [6] [emphasis added] 

Did you catch that? Congar says that all that is needed is a new understanding of the consensus of the fathers. All the Church has to do is take the modern day dogma and define or invent a consensus found to align with what the Church teaches today because both the Church and tradition are ‘living,’ which means they are fungible, changeable into whatever the Church decides they should mean today. 

Congar’s also added this, 

Now, it may be, that the seed which will be most fruitful in the future is not the most clearly so at present, and that the lifelines of faith may not pass through the great doctors in a given instance. Historical documentation is at the factual level; it must leave room for a judgement made not in the light of the documentary evidence alone, but of the Church’s faith. [7] [emphasis added] 

So that you do not misunderstand the significance of these two sentences, what Congar is saying is that it is possible that the doctrines taught in the future may still be unknown today. That would mean that those doctrines can never be documented from history because there is no existing history to draw from. But since the Church is infallible and ‘living,’ she cannot create a heretical doctrine or dogma, therefore the consensus needs to be brought in line with whatever the Church teaches today. That is, of course, heresy because there is now no basis for these new ‘truths’ to stand upon. No Scripture. No history. No ‘tradition.’ The Church now has the right to invent beliefs and then invent the justification for your beliefs.

As Webster said, 

In other words, the truths of ecclesiastical history must be interpreted by whatever the faith of the Church is at the present moment. Needless to say, this is completely antithetical to the teaching of Trent and Vatican I on unanimous consent, and appears to be only a clever tactic used to avoid the embarrassment of facing the obvious contradiction between facts and claims. [8] [emphasis added] 

This is the very definition of a ‘living tradition.’ Both Keating and Congar, would seem to be promoting the view that the Catholic Church can dismiss or ignore any teachings supported by history to promote an emerging teaching authority. Webster also pointed out that consent has been reinterpreted to mean ‘milieu,’ a word purposefully chosen because so few people know what it means. The word has a meaning of ‘the physical or social setting in which people live or in which something occurs or develops.’ This ambiguous meaning really does not provide normal people with something they can decipher when used by scholars to describe a concept that has very little substantive factual evidence. A great example would be the total lack of support for the assumption of Mary in writings of the Church fathers. 

Catholics are left with nothing more than blind faith in whatever the Church teaches, simply because the Church teaches it and they are required to believe it or will be considered to have lost their salvation. And for future Catholics, if Rome is indeed abandoning historical validation to ‘prove’ the Church’s teachings are valid, they are saddled with an even greater requirement for blind faith, or viva voce – living voice – to believe whatever the Church says is true doctrine. Truth is not what is found in Scripture, it has become whatever the Church says it is. 

Remember the quote that started off this blog from Ignatius of Loyola? Paraphrasing slightly, ‘if the church defines something to be black even though it is actually white, we should pronounce it black because the Church said it was.’ This is the blind faith we are being asked to accept without requiring proof because the Church is infallible and cannot err. However, as was demonstrated in the last two blogs in this series, the Church can and has erred, which means she will err in the future as well. She is NOT infallible.

In 1950, Pope Pius XII may have pronounced the assumption of Mary ‘Church dogma’ and required every Catholic to believe it to maintain their salvation, but at that time he still expected the church historians to prove that the Church always believed this dogma. Having shown that this was an impossible task because of the lack of historical evidence, it seems to be clear that church historians have exposed this dogma to be a fabrication. This is a prime example of why Protestants should continue to protest Catholicism. This doctrine is as unscriptural and unbiblical as it is unhistorical. A belief like this makes a mockery of the true authority of the Church, an authority that should be submitted to the teachings within Scripture. 

As Webster wrote, 

Instead of sola Scriptura, the unanimous principle of authority enunciated by both Scripture and the Church fathers, we now have sola Ecclesia, blind submission to an institution which is not accountable to Scripture or history. [9] 

The New Tradition

In this series, we gave example after example of the early Church’s reverence and submission to the authority of Scripture which Protestants will continue to call Sola Scriptura, but what we see in this section is the beginnings of the total embrace of Sola Ecclesia, Church alone. And for Catholicism it is becoming a requirement to have blind faith in whatever the Church teaches. 

What we are seeing is what Webster called, ‘dogmatic faith,’ which he defined as, 

… [a] faith which submits completely and unquestioningly to whatever Rome officially defines as dogma. To refuse such submission results in anathema and the loss of salvation. Without this dogmatic faith there is no saving faith. For example, Vatican I stated that it is necessary for salvation that men and women believe not only all that is revealed in Scripture but also everything defined and proposed by the Church. To reject any dogma taught by the Roman Church is to reject saving faith and forfeit justification and eternal life. [10] 

Example: Mary: Co-Redeemer

I realize that the newest pope, Leo XIV, has taken a step back from heresy concerning Mary as co-redeemer, but it is only a partial step and there are still a number of avenues that would allow this belief to be added as an official dogma. But let us set the stage on how this situation came about. There are four beliefs, dogmas within the Catholic Church that most Protestants disagree with on Scriptural grounds:

1. Mary was born without sin.
2. Mary never sinned throughout her lifetime.
3. Mary was a perpetual virgin her entire life.
4. Mary was assumed into heaven.

I’m not going to go through these four, but each of these are easily refuted, as none of these beliefs are supported by Scripture or the early Church fathers. They developed over time, centuries after Mary’s death. There are not that many verses or passages about Mary in the Bible, but Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy seem to see doctrines and dogmas in those verses that simply are not there in the text of Scripture. So, it wasn’t that surprising that another doctrine was supposedly present that had no biblical support.

So, what does it mean that Mary was being seen as co-redeemer?

Rome teaches that Mary participated with Christ in his redemptive work by cooperating with and submitting to the will of God to become the mother of the Redeemer. Mary gave to the world the Savior, and what is more, she suffered along with her Son for the sin of the world. Her sufferings are added to those of Christ. She is now enthroned, the Queen of heaven and the advocate of sinners and mediator between them and Christ. [11] 

What’s more, grace cannot be given by God to man without the intercession of Mary; no one can approach Jesus unless they go through her. And if my last statement surprises you, read the following from the words of the the papal encyclical, ‘Octobri Mense On the Rosary’, by Leo XIII in 1891, 

With equal truth may it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ.[6] Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother. [emphasis added] 

Octobri Mense On the Rosary Pope Leo XIII – Papal Encyclicals 

But is that what Scripture teaches? No, not at all. What we see from Scripture is that it is Jesus that resides in a believer.

“to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.” (Col 1:27)

Next, Scripture tells us who is mankind’s only mediator,

“For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” (1 Tim 2:5) 

Mary is not mentioned, only Jesus, because it is Jesus who took the sins of the world upon Himself and died for those sins. Mary had no role in this at all. In addition, in Matthew 12:47-50, Jesus seems to have demonstrated that Mary held no special place as a redeemer or mediator. Scripture is extremely clear that it is Jesus and only Jesus. It should also be pointed out that no other apostle ever wrote that Mary was anything other than the birth mother of Jesus.

It is also extremely clear in the writings of the Church fathers that no early father mentioned Mary as a co-redeemer. As far as we can tell from the known historical documentation, the first person to state that Mary was a co-redeemer was Arnold of Chartres in the 12th century. The 12th century! If this is such an important doctrinal position for the Church, and there are many Catholics upset with the current pope’s decision on this doctrine, why did it take almost 1200 years before anyone mentioned it? The answer is obvious: it was invented from who knows who, but it is not a doctrine the Church should ever believe since there is a total lack of biblical and historical evidence. As Webster said, “We do not need a mediator to go to the mediator!” [12] [emphasis in original]  

Blind Faith

As we have been presenting here and even stated above, Catholicism is demanding what amounts to ‘blind faith’ to believe doctrines which are neither in Scripture nor early Church history and which a purported infallible organization says you must believe to be saved. Scripture does not ask believers to have blind submission to the Church. This is clearly seen in Acts 17:11, where the Bereans were commended for searching the Scriptures to see if what an apostle was teaching them was true. Imagine if Catholics were allowed to search Scripture and history to see if new doctrines, like papal infallibility or the assumption of Mary, are actually true. 

But what has actually happened is by declaring themselves as infallible, the Catholic Church has, 

… cut herself off from any accountability to the Scriptures, thereby making herself immune to judgment and correction. By claiming that she cannot err, she has, in effect, declared she cannot be judged or corrected. She has elevated herself above Scripture. This is not the Church of Augustine, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem or Athanasius. [13] 

Jesus, in Matthew 23:2-12, told the Jewish people that their leaders had authority to teach but they should not blindly follow their teachings. He was telling them that if they were instructed to violate Scripture, they should reject the teachings of the Jewish leaders. 

This whole issue is about authority and which one is supreme: the Church or Scripture? And ultimately, it is a battle between God’s authority and man’s. So, the question becomes: which one is God’s authority and which one is man’s? Is the ultimate authority based upon God and His words found in Scripture, or upon man and his words through the Church leadership? That may sound like an unfair and very biased question, but we know that Scripture is inerrant and infallible, and we have seen in other blogs in this series that the Church has erred, which means she cannot be inerrant or infallible. 

Both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox believe that the Church was instituted as the supreme infallible authority, and that Scripture’s authority is thus subjugated to the Church, since the Church created Scripture. Protestants, on the other hand, see the Church as the people of God, not an institution, and that the people of God are fallible human beings. And if the Church is errant and fallible and Scripture is infallible and inerrant, then Scripture is the only truly infallible authority we can trust to guide us. And just for clarity, the Church did not create Scripture, God breathed it into existence through the Apostles and those specifically chosen by God and with direct association with an Apostle.

So, if the Church is fallible, then following her directives over the authority and direction of Scripture is putting the teachings of man over the teachings of Scripture. 

Conclusion

As I have stepped through this series on Sola Scriptura so far, Following the lead of William Webster and David King, I have approached, explained and dissected a number of concepts, theologies and beliefs that oppose the basis of Sola Scriptura. I have shown repeatedly that Sola Scriptura has much more validity than Catholic apologists give it credit. 

In this blog, I started by defining ‘viva voce,’ the living voice that Catholicism says the Church has. I provided some information about John Henry Newman and his doctrinal development thesis and how the Church took that concept and put their own twist on it. No longer was there a concern that Church dogmas are validated by the teachings of the early Church fathers and their supposed ‘unanimous consent’, they had morphed into a view that Catholics were and are still expected to believe ‘whatever the Church says’ is true simply because the Church says it, which is exactly what Ignatius of Loyola taught in the Jesuit order he founded. 

I then used the belief of Mary as co-redeemer that far too many Catholics still believe to be true as an example of ‘viva voce.’ And finally, I ended with pointing out that what is expected of Catholics is a blind faith in the beliefs the Church deems dogma even though there is virtually nothing in Scripture or early church history to support doctrines like the assumption of Mary and the infallibility of the pope. 

The common thread in all of it for the Catholic is the authority of the Church, as opposed to the Protestant, who believes in the authority of Scripture. In earlier blogs, Scripture was produced to support the authority of Scripture, as well as Church fathers who did the same. But let’s add a little more here. Why does the Protestant disagree with the type of infallible authority of the Church? Because it is Jesus who is the head of the Church, not Peter. 

He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. (Col 1:18)

And He [God] put all things in subjection under His [Christ] feet, and gave Him [Christ] as head over all things to the church, (Eph 1:22)

For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. (Eph 5:23)

In the above verses, as anyone can easily see, the Church is not an institution, but a body of believers with Christ as its head. And since Scripture is very clear about this, it is hard to see the Church as an institution with infallibility if the Church is a body of believers like you and me. Its members are in all stages of growth, from the newly saved to those serving as deacons and elders/overseers/bishops. What the Catholic Church is really trying to project is the ecclesiastical leadership and their authority, calling that ‘the Church.’ But those leaders have as much infallibility as you and I have. 

All of this leads us back to the only infallible and inerrant source the body of Christ has, Scripture. We don’t need doctrines that took centuries to develop and that have no historical support from the writings of the Church fathers. What we have and what we need is in Scripture. These are the doctrines the early Church read, learned, preached and defended. If you don’t believe me, read church history for yourself, but start in the beginning, not the Middle Ages. The doctrines you see there are the only doctrines we need because they are doctrines given to us in the Old and New Testaments. They are the same Scriptures the church received from the Apostles (plus Mark and Luke) and were then protected for the last 2000 years and given to every generation up to ours. 

Scripture is like ‘a river broad and deep, shallow enough for a lamb to go wading, but deep enough for an elephant to swim’. 

Gregory the Great, Commentary on Job, prefatory letter to Leander, 4. 

Footnotes

1. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 276, and NINS Digital Collections.
2. Summarized from William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pp. 276-277
3. Ibid, p. 277.
4. Ibid, p. 277.
5. Ibid, p. 279.
6. Ibid, p. 280.
7. Ibid, p. 280.
8. Ibid, p. 281.
9. Ibid, p. 283.
10. Ibid, pp. 283-284.
11. Ibid, p. 286.
12. Ibid, p. 289.
13. Ibid, p. 289.