§18. The false and self-refuting position and
significance of Sacred Scripture in the Protestant system
{245} As the immediate divine record
of revelation, Sacred Scripture has in itself, according to the preceding
paragraphs, the highest dignity, unsurpassable by any other source or
rule or communication of the faith; as a written record, it is naturally
able and designed to be a constant, permanent source, as well as a constant
rule of faith. But therefore it cannot and should not be the sole
source, much less the sole rule, nor the complete, proximate,
and general rule of faith, i.e. one that is immediately
accessible to all believers and immediately necessary for each
individual. It cannot even be acknowledged publicly and completely as
a source of faith and continue overtly as such without a living
organ, distinct from Scripture itself, which through its activity publicly
authenticates, supports, and asserts the latter. In a word: Sacred Scripture
cannot and should not have in all these respects the meaning that the Protestants
in fact ascribe to it, so as to be able to deny the position and importance
of the living teaching apostolate, or else must ascribe to it, because
they deny the teaching apostolate and yet want to have an organ that performs
its duties. Assuming the institution of a permanent teaching apostolate, it is
evident that Sacred Scripture need not have and in fact does not have
the significance ascribed to it by the Protestants. However it is also
evident and easy to see that it cannot have this significance, which is
to be demonstrated here in detail.
{246} I. The fact that Sacred
Scripture is not the sole source of revelation, in other words, cannot
form the entire apostolic deposit, is established later on in §21.
{247} II. Far less can Scripture
be the sole rule of faith. For—apart from the fact that 1) it is a
materially incomplete rule, in that manifestly it cannot serve as a rule
for those truths which are not contained in it as a source, and therefore both
another source and also another rule would necessarily be required, at least
for these truths—Scripture itself, with reference to the truths contained in
it, therefore cannot be the sole rule of faith, because 2) it is not a formally
complete rule and therefore must be supplemented by another rule. However
it is formally incomplete as a rule, despite all the perfection of its dignity
and its content, because in its capacity as a dead book—one moreover that is
not systematically formulated, but rather in manyplaces obscure and difficult
and exposed to multiple misunderstandings—it is not at all suited, much less
designed, to carry out by itself all the functions and to perform the duties
that are necessary for the effective, uniform, and general regulation of
the faith, i.e. one that strikes down all errors and doubts and asserts
the truth in its full purity and certainty, firmness and decisiveness. In order
for such regulation to take place, another principle, the living,
authoritative proclamation of doctrine, which includes a true judicial
authority, must be added to Sacred Scripture, in order to apply and assert
fully the regulatory significance that is essentially inherent in Sacred Scripture
as a source of faith, and hence to appear as the proximate rule. It follows at
the same time that another reason why Scripture must not be the sole rule is
that 3) although it too in a certain sense is a rule of faith, nevertheless it
can only be a remote rule and not the proximate rule of faith. The
final reason why it cannot be the sole rule of faith is because then 4) it would
necessarily be an altogether general rule, i.e. one that is
immediately applicable to all men at all times and in all places, which
obviously is not the case; for precisely the circumstance that otherwise
constitutes its intrinsic value—namely the fact that it is a written record,
one that is so voluminous, profound, and written in the language and manner of
the original organs of revelation—necessarily means that it has remained in
itself until now entirely impervious to the use and the understanding of most
of the faithful and, at least in its full extent, will always remain
inaccessible. (Matthias
Scheeben, Handbook of Catholic Dogmatics, Book 1, Part 1 [trans. Michael
J. Miler; Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Academic, 2019], §18 nos. 245-47)
To Support this Blog:
Amazon
Wishlist (US)
Email for Amazon Gift card:
ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
