“Church vs. the Bible” (vs. Francisco Tourinho)

Examining the Presuppositions That Lie Behind Past Catholic Recommended Restrictions on Individual Bible Reading

Francisco Tourinho is a Brazilian Calvinist apologist. He described his theological credentials on my Facebook page:

I have the respect of the academic community for my articles published in peer review magazines, translation of unpublished classical works into Portuguese and also the production of a book in the year 2019 with more than 2000 copies sold (with no marketing). In addition I have higher education in physical education from Piauí State University and theology from the Assemblies of God Biblical Institute, am currently working towards a Masters from Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, and did post-graduate work at Dom Bosco Catholic University. Also, I am a professor in the Reformed Scholasticism discipline at the Jonathan Edwards Seminary in the postgraduate course in Philosophical Theology. [edited slightly for more flowing English]

First, I would like to thank Mr. Dave Armstrong (“Armstrong” hereafter) for the opportunity to debate.

*

79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places and for all types of people, to study and know the spirit, piety and mysteries of Sacred Scripture.

Again, it is stating “negatively” the idea that not all people are qualified to engage in personal Bible reading with no outside guidance; that this can (and has in history) led to false doctrines. The decree was trying to protect the flock from error, not to bash the Bible, as if it were a bad thing. That’s the Protestant stereotype of these sorts of decrees (as if the Catholic Church feared that folks would conclude Catholicism is false by reading the Bible). But it’s clearly not the intent.

I cited Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin in my initial article, responding to each one of these “controversial” propositions (#79-85), because he provides such an excellent and helpful analysis of Unigenitus. His article is entitled, “Did the Church Forbid Bible Study?” (1-20-12). I need not repeat that. I direct folks to his article above. But here are a few highlights, for those who don’t follow the link. I’ll cite a portion of his commentary for each proposition:

[T]he concern with this proposition is quite likely . . . “we are worried about people reading and getting a wrong view so don’t read without proper preparation.” It does not seem to be “We reject the idea of individual study of Scripture since Scripture is unclear.”

80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for everyone.

This seems to be objectionable on the same grounds as the previous proposition. Again: What about those unprepared for individual study?

81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for lay people to refrain from reading it.

[I]t’s okay for a person to say, “By God’s providence the Scriptures are not as clear as I would need them to be to study them on my own. I’m in the position of the Ethiopian eunuch [see Acts 8:27-31 below], who can’t discern important points on his own, without guidance.”

82. The Lord’s Day must be sanctified by Christians with readings from pious works and above all from the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading.

It seems to be intended to protect Christians from the idea it is “harmful” if they feel the need to say, “I am not prepared to do unguided Scripture study on Sundays; therefore, I wish to withdraw from doing so.”

83. It is an illusion to be persuaded that knowledge of the mysteries of religion should not be communicated to women by reading the Holy Scriptures. Not from the simplicity of women, but from the proud knowledge of men came the abuse of Scripture and heresies were born.

This seems to be concerned to protect the rights of women to make the same objections discussed in the previous two propositions. . . .

84. To snatch the New Testament from the hands of Christians, or to keep it closed against them, depriving them of the means of understanding it, is to close the mouth of Christ to them.

. . . “captious” . . . means, roughly, uncharitably fault-finding. In other words, being unfair to those you are criticizing . . . I could easily see this proposition as being captious. It characterizes the Church as “snatch[ing] away from the hands of Christians the New Testament.”

85. To prohibit Christians from reading Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light by the children of light and make them suffer a kind of excommunication.

The overall phrasing is hostile and contentious and seems, again, to  be casting the non-endorsement of universal, unguided Scripture study in the worst possible light. Yet there are good reason for not endorsing universal, unguided Scripture study. Some people are simply not prepared for it.

Then Jimmy summarizes:

It also seems to me that they [the above propositions] do not add up to a rejection of individual Scripture study for those who are properly prepared for this. They are merely rejecting the idea that unguided Scripture study should be universally engaged in by all Christians, regardless of their level of preparation, and Christians are not at fault if they do not feel themselves prepared to undertake this task and are content to learn the Scriptures under ecclesiastical guidance.

Now I’d like to step back and examine Francisco’s (and Protestantism’s) always casually-assumed premise with regard to Bible-reading. As a good “socratic” in my methodology, it’s what I do, very often. Can it stand up to scrutiny? Here is what they believe:

Individual Bible study ought to be utterly free and unrestricted, does not require any necessary guidance, in order to rightly, properly understand Holy Scripture in a non-heretical way [referring here to heretical views agreed-to by Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox alike, such as the denial of trinitarianism, the deity of Christ, etc.], and entails no spiritual danger whatsoever of the person falling prey to false doctrines due to their false interpretation of the inspired Scripture.

That is — at bottom — the premise behind all of this protest against restrictive recommendations such as that in Unigenitus. It’s assumed (seemingly without much reflection) that passing out Bibles to all and sundry (a practice that is never sanctioned in the Bible), to come up with theology on their own without ecclesiastical or scholarly guidance, is perfectly fine and dandy. How could any Christian possibly object to that!? Anyone who does object is obviously anti-Bible! So goes the reasoning. This is one reason why Francisco chose this article in particular, because he thinks it proves Catholic hostility towards the Bible: whereas Protestants regard themselves as uniquely the champions of Holy Scripture.

But is the proposition / premise above, true? I would say it clearly is not true, based on two considerations:

1) biblical teaching about Bible-reading.

2) the history of non-trinitarian cults, especially in America, as a result of these radically sola Scriptura views.

Let’s survey these in order:

Holy Scripture itself does indeed teach the principle of a necessity for authoritative guides with regard to reading and understanding Holy Scripture:

Exodus 18:20 (RSV) and you shall teach them the statutes and the decisions, and make them know the way in which they must walk and what they must do.

Moses was not simply to deliver and read the Law (Torah: first five books of the Bible) to the Hebrews, but also “teach them” about it. Since he was the Lawgiver and author of the Torah, it stands to reason that his interpretation and teaching would be of a highly authoritative nature.

Leviticus 10:11 and you are to teach the people of Israel all the statutes which the LORD has spoken to them by Moses.

Moses’ brother Aaron was also to teach the true meaning of the Torah. It was true at this early stage, just as it was in Jesus’ time, that believers were not simply given Bibles (as if it were a mass “Gideon’s Bible” crusade) to read. Authoritative interpretation was stressed as necessary from the beginning.

Deuteronomy 33:10 They shall teach Jacob thy ordinances, and Israel thy law . . .

Authoritative interpretation of the Torah was also the responsibility of the Levite priests. Compare this with 2 Chronicles 15:3; Malachi 2:6-8 — the latter calls them “messenger of the LORD of hosts”.

Ezra 7:6, 10 this Ezra went up from Babylonia. He was a scribe skilled in the law of Moses which the LORD the God of Israel had given; and the king granted him all that he asked, for the hand of the LORD his God was upon him. . . . [10] For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach his statutes and ordinances in Israel.

Nehemiah 8:1-3, 7-8, 12 And all the people gathered as one man into the square before the Water Gate; and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the LORD had given to Israel. [2] And Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could hear with understanding, on the first day of the seventh month. [3] And he read from it . . . [7] Also Jesh’ua, Bani, Sherebi’ah, Jamin, Akkub, Shab’bethai, Hodi’ah, Ma-asei’ah, Keli’ta, Azari’ah, Jo’zabad, Hanan, Pelai’ah, the Levites, helped the people to understand the law, while the people remained in their places. [8] And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly [footnote, “or with interpretation”]; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading. . . . [12] And all the people went their way to eat and drink and to send portions and to make great rejoicing, because they had understood the words that were declared to them.

8:7 describes thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra, and “who helped the people to understand the law.” Much earlier, in King Jehoshaphat’s reign, we find Levites exercising the same function (2 Chronicles 17:8-9). There is no sola Scriptura, with its associated idea “perspicuity” (evident clearness in the main) here. The people did indeed understand the law (8:12), but not without much assistance — not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself, but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc.

Luke 24:25-27 And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! [26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” [27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Acts 8:27-31 And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can’dace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship [28] and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. [29] And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” [30] So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” [31] And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

2 Peter 3:15-17 So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, [16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. [17] You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.

It’s not just “the medieval Catholic Church” that came up with this concept. It’s clearly taught in inspired revelation. It’s also true that in the first five centuries of the Church, it was a deliberate and widespread practice to only gradually introduce new Christians to the “deeper” elements of Christianity. This practice was known as the Discipline of the Secret, or Disciplina Arcani in Latin.

Therefore, not only the Bible in both Testaments, but also the early Church for some 1500 years, held that not everyone should simply be given a Bible to read, with no authoritative guidance to steer them from erroneous interpretations (many of which have been observed throughout history, especially among schismatic and heretical “sects” or “cults”).

Now onto a brief consideration of the history of heretical sects: especially in the United States. Here in America, false sects are particularly prone to develop, because we are the quintessential Protestant country. Historical heresies in the early Church and these late-arriving cults both espoused sola Scriptura, just as Protestants do. From that premise they established their little heretical empires.

Charles Taze Russell founded the Arian Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1879. It now has about 21.3 million members worldwide.

Mary Baker Eddy founded the Gnostic-influenced Christian Science in the same year. It had a little under 50,000 members in 2009, down from a high of 270,000 in 1936.

Joseph Smith founded polytheistic Mormonism in 1827. It now has over 16 million members.

The United Pentecostal Church adopted the Sabellian heresy. It was begun by Charles Parham and now has 5.2 million members.

Christadelphianism is another Arian cult, begun by John Thomas in 1848. It now numbers about 50,000.

This is what can happen by allowing unguided, unrestricted Bible study and applying sola Scriptura (the denial that there is an infallible Church or tradition to guide one’s interpretation of the sole infallible rule of faith, the Bible), and a disregard for historical precedent (or apostolic succession).

The notion of complete, utterly unbounded individual religious freedom also has historical reasons for why it came to be. Protestants and Catholics alike used to practice persecution and intolerance of other Christians different from themselves. Both Luther and Calvin sanctioned the death penalty for Anabaptists, because they believed in adult baptism. I have an extensive web page, “Protestantism: Historic Persecution & Intolerance”: lest anyone doubt that Protestants persecuted just as much as Catholics did.

No one has a “perfect record” in this respect. And one only need to look at how Protestant England (where most of my ancestors came from) treated Ireland for 400 years. Catholicism was either outlawed outright, or Catholics disenfranchised from mainstream society in England from 1536 to 1829. I have documented on my web page above, 1275 Catholic martyrs by name, including 430 in just ten years by King Henry VIII,  312 under Queen Elizabeth I, and 444 Irish martyrs. Often, these executions for the “treasonous” crime of being a Catholic or a Catholic priest utilized the most barbaric, inhuman tortures, such as (notoriously), being hanged, drawn, and quartered, involving, in the worst cases, being disemboweled or having their hearts cut out, or both arms and legs cut off while still alive.

But we mustn’t think that all such executions were done out of hatred. There is a case that can be made for the general notion of capital punishment for heresy. I wrote about this in my paper, The Inquisition: Its Purpose and Rationale Within the Mediæval Worldview [2-21-06]:

In the Middle Ages, all heresy was pretty much regarded as obstinacy and in bad faith; evil will, etc. The Church today takes a much more psychologically nuanced approach: much heresy is believed in good faith; hence the adherent is less culpable; hence not guilty enough to be punished, etc. (i.e., on the human level: divine judgment being something else altogether). We have also learned that coercion is pointless, which was the original Christian position, anyway . . .

The medievals believed (with a great degree of justification from a Christian perspective) that heresy can be every bit as dangerous to individuals and societies as physical crime is (in fact, much more so, assuming the background premises). This inner principle has remained the same, while the application and particular understanding of it has undergone positive development. The belief that heresy is bad and soul-destroying is altogether in effect today in Catholicism, just as it always has been. But the understanding of the motives of the heretic and thereby the treatment or punishment changed (along with the relationship of church and state in modern societies). . . .

The killing of heretics was based on the notion that they were a menace to society, and would cause untold harm to society and souls, because in those days, heresy was considered as harmful and dangerous (if not more so) than physical crime is today. Humanists believe that the body dies and that is it. Christians believe that a deliberate, obstinate heretic will burn in hell forever; hence the high importance placed on preventing the spread of heresy. . . .

I don’t think that the Inquisition can or should be absolutely defended by the Catholic apologist. I don’t try to do that. I don’t like the Inquisition at all myself (as I view coercion in matters of religion and conscience as a contradiction in terms – precisely the position of Vatican II). But to say that there is no “essential” difference between the Inquisition and Communism or the Nazi Holocaust (as some critics of Christianity or Catholicism in particular try to do) is patently ludicrous and preposterous. . . .

The Church has come to realize that the rights of individual freedom and conscience are relatively more important than temporal punishment of heretics (because the causes of heresy are regarded as extremely complex and not given to harsh and swift judgment).

Francisco objects to the notion — described by Akin — that of a bunch of negative general judgments stated in Unigenitus, we aren’t sure which apply to which propositions. But if that’s the nature of the document it is. Obviously, exactitude was not of the essence of the document. It was a general condemnation of some false notions. This very vagueness, however, is another proof that the document is not infallible and binding forever, as Lawrence King and Robert T. Miller explain in their article, “On Integralism, Religious Liberty, and the Authority of the Church: 19th Century Popes and 20th Century Popes Disagreed” (Public Discourse, 2-2-19):

And consider the constitution Unigenitus of 1713 (DS 2400-2502), in which Pope Clement XI condemned one hundred one propositions from a book by the Jansenist theologian Pasquier Quesnel. Unlike Auctorem fidei, which specifies the precise theological censure for each item, Unigenitus presents a list of Quesnel’s statements, and then offers a bevy of censures without indicating which censure applies to which proposition: . . .

All these propositions are errores in the original Latin sense: they “wander” or “stray” from the best path, and the pope is concerned because Catholics are being misled by them. Some are false, and some are even heretical. However, others are condemned merely as “offensive to pious ears” or “rash” —theological censures that do not completely rule out the possibility that these propositions might actually be true.

Catholics eager for certitude may wonder why Clement would condemn a list of propositions without specifying what’s wrong with each of them in a permanent, definitive manner. Recall that, as Vatican I taught, a pope has no source of new revelation. Before issuing a definitive judgment, a pope must investigate the matter and reach certainty regarding the truth. This may take a long time. For example, Trent deliberately remained neutral concerning the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which was being debated by theologians at the time; it would take three more centuries before the Church was ready to issue an infallible judgment on the matter.

Unigenitus does what Clement intended it to do: warn Catholics of ideas that were circulating and presented various dangers. If Clement had insisted that each of these hundred-and-one propositions be analyzed to the point that he could infallibly declare exactly what was wrong with it—whether it was false, or subject to misinterpretation, or true yet “offensive to pious ears” —how many decades would have passed before the document could have been released?

Papal documents condemning erroneous propositions are common enough to constitute their own genre, with variations in their arrangement. In one variation, a specific censure is attached to each thesis. Documents of this type include Auctorem fidei as well as In agro dominico (John XXII, 1329), Ex supernae clementiae (Urban V, 1368), and Cum occasione (Innocent X, 1653). In another variation, there are no individual censures, but only a global condemnation. This variation is more common and includes Exsurge Domine (Leo X, 1520), Ex omnibus (Pius V, 1567), Cum alias (Innocent XII, 1699), Unigenitus, and several others.

I didn’t use the exact terms he described, but the basic idea is the same. Francisco is getting way off course by this point of his article. It’s almost like he is not even responding to me at this point. The misunderstanding has gotten very deep. Hopefully, this reply will clarify my true positions.

The “Bibles sold in Catholic stores” comment is really funny, once one discovers (as Francisco will now) that my bestselling book of all 50 so far is  New Catholic Answer Bible (2005), which contains 44 of my apologetics inserts and also got an Imprimatur from a bishop. I also put out my own New Testament, which was simply my editing of various British English translations to maintain the “King James” and 19th-century British “flavor”: my Victorian King James Version (2014).

Only one of the two is right: either Unigenitus is right or the Pope is in heresy and the Church of Rome is colluding with the mistake of selling Bibles to anyone.

Once again: Unigenitus was not infallible. There is no issue or problem here. The discipline about Bible-reading changed in the 1880s onwards and now the positive good gained by private Bible-reading is considered a net gain compared to the danger of arriving at heretical views. I’m absolutely delighted by the present view of the Church, because it has always been my view, too. All this is, is a straw man. Francisco can certainly do better than that.

. . . the magisterium of Rome contradicts itself in allowing what was previously infallibly forbidden.

It wasn’t infallibly forbidden. His premise is wrong, which is why he’s out to sea without a life jacket in arguing this point. The very vagueness of the exact condemnation of the propositions in Unigenitus proves that. So does their disciplinary (not doctrinal) nature. It’s simply yet another case of an otherwise educated Protestant not knowing how infallibility works in the Catholic Church. There are many subtleties and nuances involved.

It’s okay not to know. We all have to learn lots of things. What matters now is whether Francisco accepts my clarifications of what we actually teach. If he doesn’t and claims that I don’t know what I’m talking about (as a professional, published Catholic apologist for 21 years), then our dialogue will be over, because it would go nowhere after that. If he wants to do a book with me, he’s going to have to do a much better job than this, because I would never agree to being in a book with a Protestant, where the Protestant misrepresents what we actually teach and believe.

After this, he keeps repeating the same falsehoods over and over: that supposedly the Catholic Church “forbade the reading of Scripture to everyone [besides clergy] without exception” / “the question is whether reading must be forbidden to all, that we deny”,  etc. Repeating an untrue statement over and over doesn’t make it any less false or more true. If he doesn’t modify his misunderstanding on this, our dialogue is definitely over. I wouldn’t have anywhere near the patience to continue. Rule #1 in any debate / dialogue is understanding and accurately conveying the opponent’s views.

The Calvinist TULIP is not our topic. But I will note (since it’s been brought up) that I have shown the unbiblical nature of all five points many times in scores of articles on my Calvinism and Salvation web pages, and in three books:

Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin (March 2010, 388p)

Biblical Catholic Salvation: “Faith Working Through Love” (Oct. 2010, 187p)

A Biblical Critique of Calvinism (Oct. 2012, 178p) [which may soon be possibly translated into Portugese]

Nor is the topic predestination and our supposed semi-Pelagianism (a tired and false old saw of anti-Catholic rhetoric), nor ecumenical councils, nor sedevacantists, nor divisions in the Church “on the ground”, nor the nature of sacred tradition, nor sola Scriptura. This is just the “throw a bunch of horse manure at the Catholic Church at one time, and hope some sticks” technique. I don’t play that game. Try that with amateur or rookie apologists. It never works with me. I discuss one topic at a time.