The debate between the views of the Catholic and Protestant churches is one that has shaped Christianity for centuries and will continue to for centuries more. While the Catholic Church sees themselves as protectors of the doctrine, Protestants believe that direct access to the Bible is most important. While many may see this as a black and white issue, there are many good arguments for a middle ground, one that prioritizes both Church and Scripture.
The Catholic Church saw using Latin Vulgate as a way to safeguard the teachings of the Bible and prevent it from being mishandled. The way they saw it, keeping the texts within the church was the best way to preserve the Scripture. This way of thinking aligns with many other teachings from the Catholic Church, such as the importance of communal worship, succession of authority from the Apostles to Popes, and the consistent existence of God’s plan.
The Protestant Church, however, saw accessibility to the Scripture as imperative, believing that God’s truth could be found only in the Bible, rather than through a Church. Protestants fought for the Bible to be translated into the vernacular so that everyday people could seek the truth for themselves. This approach introduced something new to the Christian faith: interpretation. This led to many denominations and differing theologies.
What Brennan Breed calls a ‘nomadic’ character emphasizes a very real problem that could happen if there was no sort of authority existing in the Christian faith. Without an overarching authority, the Scripture is open to an endless amount of interpretations, as well as mishandling and fragmenting. On the other hand, the Catholic ideal of over-protection of the Bible could lead to issues of mistreatment of the teaching of the bible.
It is important that we as Christians carefully walk the line between under and over use of authority over and freedom to use the Bible. It itself was created by community in the early days of Christianity, which represents the importance of working as a community today to preserve the sacred texts, while also being accessible to all. The middle ground, I believe, is to recognize the importance of both protection by the Church, as well as accessibility to the public.
Hi Smith.
This is a very fascinating post. I like how you have carefully explained the main differences between Catholic and Protestant perspectives. Seeing how both sides have good arguments for how they interpret Scripture is informative. All in all, though, fantastic work igniting this crucial conversation and the need to preserve the sacred texts.
Your honest post opens a quagmire of biblical custodial debate. You qualify the church to be responsible for the sacred text, and the congregants (public) as its participants. The reformers tried to hold the church responsible and accountable of doctrinal purity but they failed hence the birth of protestant churches. In reality your middle ground resulted to rigidity of the Roman catholic church, division of the protestant church and the only compromise we have is the Bible itself. Can we entrust the bible to anyone?
This is a fantastic post, Deanna: well-informed and clearly articulated. As I read your comments, I wonder how many Christians from both sides of the issue are willing to walk this middle ground? Are Catholics reading the Bible on their own? Are Protestants ready to acknowledge the importance the historical church has played in guarding and interpreting the Bible? I tend to think that many Catholics are in fact moving the right direction. I think that it is we evangelicals who have the most work to do.