Your Daily Erasmus

"We are dealing with this: would a stable mind depart from the opinion handed down by so many famous men famous for holiness and miracles, depart from the decision of the church, and commit our souls to the faith of someone like you who has sprung up just now with a few followers, although the leading men of your flock do not agree either with you or among themselves -- indeed though you do not even agree with yourself, since in this same Assertion you say one thing in the beginning and something else later on, recanting what you said before...it is not credible that God for so many centuries should have overlooked such a harmful error in his church without revealing to some of his saints the point which you contend is the keystone of the teachings in the gospel ...How, then, are you sure that Wyclif was a holy man and the Arians were heretics? Is Wyclif holy precisely because he was condemned by the church which you call papistical? By the same token you will say that Arius was holy because he was condemned by the same church. At this point if you appeal to Scripture, did the Arians have any lack of Scripture? No, they did not, you will say, but they interpreted it wrongly. But how can we be sure of that except that the church rejected their interpretation and approved that of the other side? The same could be said of Pelagius . . . I think it is safer to follow public authority rather than the opinion of someone or other who scorns everyone and boasts of his own conscience and spirit." - Erasmus of Rotterdam responding to Martin Luther.

I think my favourite Roman Catholics are those like Erasmus and St. Thomas More who constantly attack the Church and try to reform it, but from the inside. The true reformers rather than rebels who wish to change it not out of spite, but out of love for what it could be. That's why I call myself a Roman Catholic and in the next breath decry the vanity of the Vatican, or the unnecessary Platonism of asceticism, etc.

I call the Counter-Reformers and Church Fathers the 'polemicals' of the faith, and I apologize for putting this up, I just thought it was funny how none of our arguments (Protestant or Catholic) has advanced beyond Luther and Erasmus. I'm hoping to read some Karl Rahner, Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and Hans Urs Von Balthusar, who are much more modern and ecumenical. But I can't find any of their books anywhere, so I'm just going to read Donald Miller and feel less angry. I only posted the Erasmus cuz I found it on Dave Armstrong's blog.

"Romans" Catholic Justification

I've been studying Romans for the past 2 weeks and at first ironically after reading chapters 3-4 I felt the Protestants were absolutely correct on Justification by Faith Alone, now after reading chapters 5-8 I am almost certain the Catholics are correct in their explanation.

The way I understand it, the Faith alone issue is almost a misunderstanding. We have such close ideas on justification it's amazing how different people think they are. Justification for the Protestant is by faith alone, but they don't REALLY mean faith alone, if you asked a Protestant does someone have to repent of their sins? yes they would answer. Do they have to love God? yes they would answer. Do they have to love their neighbour? yes to a point (we know that we have passed from death to life because we love one another -1 Jn 3:14). So the Protestant really believes that we are justified by the attitude of our heart, by faith in God and by repentance, which is exactly what the Catholic believes.

The difference is imputed vs. infused righteousness. St. Paul argues in the beginning of Romans that by having faith we are justified by the 'free gift of God' and that 'Christ died for us' (5:8) HOWEVER in my NRSV commentary the writer says 'the verse should NOT be interpretted 'Christ died in our place' (protestant doctrine of Penal Substitution), but it is better interpretted 'for our benefit' (Catholic doctrine of Christus Victor). How could Christ's vicarious death on the cross mean the final salvation of some when St. Paul writes "just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all" (5:18) - Now unless you're a Quaker and believe in Universal salvation, then you have to accept the Catholic view that Christ died for all, and did so 'the many WILL be made righteous' (5:19). This is showing justification as a process, it is ongoing, and it is Christ's faithfullness which will be infused into us. St. Paul's whole point is that Christ died to make it possible for us to be like him, as St. Irenaeus says 'he became what we are that we might be what he is'. The next theme of Romans is life in the Spirit. St. Paul says "just as Christ was raised from the dead... so we might walk in the newness of life" (6:4). He continually warns us 'do not let sin exercise sin in your mortal bodies' (6:12), and why would he if we are justified by imputed righteousness. Next he writes "become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted" (6:17). He sums it up at the end of his argument in chapter 6 with "you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God, the advantage you get is sanctification. The end is eternal life." - The end of sanctification - being made holy - is 'eternal life'. The next verse of course we all had to memorize for sunday school, but the verse before is really the key to the argument.

For Paul the cross means the Possibility of Salvation, it is salvation from 'the law' he writes "you have died to the law through the body of Christ...in order that we may bear fruit for God" (7:4). The big point is 'we are slaves not under the old written code (ie. the law) but in the new life of the Spirit" (7:6). The other big conclusion, the message of Romans as I learned today was that Christ died "so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" (8:4)

This is the message of Jesus as well, that we are to love God, and love our neighbour. Finally I have a view of Romans and St. Paul that fit with the rest of scripture. The role of the Holy Spirit is justifying us/sanctifying us. The division of sanctification and justification did not exist till John Calvin in the 16th century, it is foreign to scripture as well. If God just wanted us to believe, why did Christ tell the rich young ruler 'you know the law' when he asked how he was to be saved. The purpose is that through Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit, we can be made righteous. That makes sense of all the verses that say no impure people will enter heaven etc, and also proves purgatory. This has been quite a breakthrough in the Catholic - Protestant search, and it makes alot of sense. So we are justified by a 'heart-faith' alone (Peter Kreeft's term) but we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit who leads us in love and good works, and we are then judged on our love. as Matthew 25 says, did we care for the poor, the lonely, the needy.

Eastern Orthodoxy

Eastern Orthdoxy seems like the near perfect version of Christianity. I think they have an amazing balance of Tradition and Scripture. Scripture is still allowed to critique traditions and it is held in high esteem (even if the communion as a whole can't agree on the canon of it).

I love the fact that they allow for mystery, and that they seem so ancient in how they do things. At the Catholic Church I occassionally attend they use modern Christian music. But I remember listening in History class to the Liturgy of St. Anthony, and the beauty of the churches. I love the Icons which constantly remind me of the Great Cloud of Witnesses. I think if I ever went into one of those churches it would feel like that line in the Apostles' Creed "The communion of the saints", the one covenent body on Earth and in Heaven. It's a great image.

As well the Filioque issue to me is in favor of the East Orthodox (for those unfamiliar with it, the Orthodox belive the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, whereas the Catholics add, or the Orthodox remove - depending on your position of course - the Filioque, which is latin for 'and the Son', thus Catholics believe the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.) In my reading of scripture I believe it is the Father. (but of course, I haven't read intensively on it).

I think their position on Tradition is what I like the most. The fact that they ordain married priests, and that they seem to have an amazing reverence for God. I also really like a few of their saints. I enjoy the Eastern Mysticism, and frequently pray the Jesus prayer (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner) as they do, and find it beneficial.

Of course the closest Orthodox church is a 45-50 minute drive away, and I hear they're even less welcoming than the Catholics (which would mean probably not letting me in the door). And the Church is split up into about 19 churches all claiming episcopal authority over the same diocese, and they are ridiculously nationalistic (quite like Catholics as well except substitute Irish and Italian, for Greek and Russian).

I remember my grandmother telling me a story about how in the Ukraine in my great grandmother's time, the Mennonites and the Ukranian Orthodox used to come after church and bake together and that's how alot of Mennonite recipes came to be. I like that kind of ecumenism. Two totally different theological viewpoints, both heretics in the eyes of each other's dogma, but they can come together as one body on the Sabbath and bake. We need more ecumenical baking, and I wish there was an Orthodox church in town...

The Last Temptation of Canterbury

I was thinking about alot recently. I was thinking about my future. I have planned for the last year to be in the ministry. However as anyone who pays attention to my blog has noticed I came to the conclusion that I believed Apostolic Succession to be essential and that I no longer accepted Sola Fide, or Sola Scriptura. Thus I decided that I would join the Roman Catholic Church. No other denominations have really tempted me since my decision, I seem fairly hopeful in my soon to be new faith. I theologically have changed alot and I'm sure I will become more Catholic but at the same time right now I am probably about a High Anglican with Roman Justification and Authority views, with a small but growing reverance for St. Mary.

However the fact that I desire to have a family and don't feel strongly called to the specifically Catholic priesthood means that I can have no future in ministry. I have found that however there still exists one temptation left to me. Anglicanism. I've written so much on Anglicanism on the blog that I don't feel like repeating all of it, but today I was reading Rowan Williams again - the Archbishop of Canterbury and thought about how awesome he is. He is very much an Anglo-Catholic, and basically everything he says I agree with. He seems to be a very intelligent Christian, and the Anglican model of Scripture, Tradition, and Logic is very appealing to me. I love the versatility of the church even if it includes heretical positions (like the whole Gay issue).
It is hard to stick to your convictions when your dream is to be a minister. So today my temptation among others was to go Anglican. My parents said that if I went to any non-Catholic school they would pay for it. That's tempting again. I was just thinking, wow I could move to South Carolina near Hannah and go to an Episcopalian school and study theology. I know lots of the psycho priests and bishops the Anglicans have in their church and am sure I could become an Anglican/Episcopalian Priest and still profess Catholicism mostly and stay gainfully employed and married as well.

However in my heart I know I'd always have problems. I don't think I could be in communion with Actively Homosexual Ministers of Christ - though this has only happened once it seems an inevitability. I don't know if I could work with 'brothers' who do not believe in the divinity of Christ, or the physical resurrection, or the virgin birth.

I knew that (at least today and for the last month) Roman Catholicism is the most defensible position for me, it makes the most sense and if I left it, I would leave the certain authority in the historic faith. If I was an Anglican I couldn't tell someone they were 'wrong' to not believe in the virgin birth. That's also why Dr. Rowan Williams is so tempting (in an entirely non-sexual way) because he believes the orthodox and historic Christian faith. He opposes heretical positions, but he is incredibly loving towards people of other faiths.

The problem again being that the English Government chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury. Caesar in essence is wed to the church. The Roman Pontiff's election (though corrupted throughout history) is organized by the college of cardinals, bishops the succesors of the apostles.
I'm 99% sure I'm still becoming a Roman Catholic as I've received so much grief, pain, and rejection already for it, and the fact that I believe it makes me think I'll become Catholic. However even if/when I do, I will always respect Dr. Rowan Williams and other Anglicans like C.S. Lewis. Williams has a way to answer these questions with such grace and truth it reminds me of what Jesus would be like in a Q & A session. He is one of my spiritual fathers, no matter what church I join.

All this to say that I am immensely tempted with tons of complications on all sides. Hmm maybe I could become a Catholic, and then go to an Episcopal seminary and then figure something out after that. I dunno. I guess prayer is all that will help. In the end I have to be intellectually honest and can't make decisions about my deepest beliefs based on money making etc. But I guess it is a factor.

hmm. at least this is my days greatest problem. I could be starving in some poor country somewhere in the southern hemisphere.

Worship is Scary: Fearing God

I just got back from Mass at St. Alexander's. It is a fairly modern Roman Catholic church, there are giant stained-glass windows and a huge Jesus with outstretched arms at the centre of the church. There are the stations of the cross (via crucis), pews, pianos, not too different from some Anglican churches aside from the obvious things I've mentioned. The Homily (sermon) was on Jesus the Good Shepherd, and all of the liturgy was about Jesus actually, every other word was Christ, and Mary and the Pope only got one name drop a piece the whole time. One thing was unusual though to my low church experience, we had to kneel for the Eucharist - which if you believe as I do, it's Jesus, it isn't that big of a deal to have to kneel - and we had things to recite that I didn't know - luckily I have memorized the Apostles Creed etc, but not everything.

I was thinking, as I knelt and dodged the people rushing forward and back to the pews in a synchronized pattern, man this is a bit strange and uncomfortable to me. Then I thought about what the Mass claims to be and a few other things. The Mass is supposed to be (it can be argued of course) an ancient service handed down by the apostles, and I figure if I felt comfortable through all of it, and it simply catered to my needs, how would that by Christ-centred and Historic Christianity. I started to think, maybe worshipping God IS supposed to be a bit scary.

Proverbs says 'the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom', but we are to love God perfectly and St. John writes that 'perfect love casts out fear' it's a bit of a paradox. Some people translate 'fear' as 'reverence', and that might be closer to it. I decided to go through the bible and see whether worship involved fear.

In Exodus 19 it describes when God is about to give the law to Moses. It says that God descended onto the mountain in a dense cloud, and that "all the people who were in the camp trembled". In Exodus 24:17 it says "the LORD was like a devouring fire on the top of the mountain in the sight of the people of Israel". I can't find it now - I wish I could, but I read a verse the other day where the people of God were to go before the Lord but they were too terrified and wanted Moses to do it, because they were afraid. These are God's people here, Israel, the body which now includes the church (for you covenant theologians out there). It is interesting to me that God's worship was on his terms, his way, not what was comfortable, little to nothing about the law was 'like everyone else' or 'comfortable'.

In Isaiah 6 when Isaiah has a vision of heaven, even the angels cover their faces from God, and the description of heaven is scary. I mean they burn his lips with a coal for his ordination, come on!

In the gospels Jesus message and God's truth got him killed. And he said lots of scary things about fearing God who can kill the body and the soul.

In Acts 4 the believers pray for boldness because they are persecuted so much. In Acts 5 God strikes Ananias and Sapphira DEAD for commiting a high handed sin against God (or a mortal sin for Catholics). God is scary, there's no getting around it.

Philippians 3:20 it says that 'our citizenship is in Heaven' St. Paul describes the church as a colony of Heaven - something the Philippians understood as the city of Philippi was a Roman colony of Greece. The people were different from the surrounding towns, they spoke Latin, they had Roman culture and Roman food etc. So when Paul describes what we are to be like - it is a description of something unrecognizable to the culture, completely 'un-seeker sensitive' in appearance, but seeker sensitive in love/charity. Likewise Peter's epistle calls us 'aliens in this world'.

Finally in Revelation 4, when St. John is witnessing the worship in Heaven, he describes a crazy Rainbow-colored, lightning-shooting, throne with people chanting a liturgy over and over for all eternity, falling on their faces before God, surrounded by strange scary sounding animals. This is God. This is worship, and it's not hard to imagine that being in the presence of Almighty God worshipping the Creator of the Universe, maybe should fill us with 'fear and trembling' - as we are told by Paul to work out our salvation in. (Phil.2.12)

I guess the thesis of all this is, I think Bill Hybels is wrong, God wants loving people, but still, people who fear him, people called out to be different and strange to those around them. Not churches that are afraid to put up crosses because they might 'offend' people... maybe that offends Jesus, I mean he seemed a little attached to the cross if I remember (forgive me for that off colour joke).

Baptism

"We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" - Nicene Creed

My entire life I've been taught at our Evangelical Baptist Church that baptism is 'an outward sign, of an inward reality'. I was baptized at 16 and I thought little about it before hand. When I was in the tank I gave my testimony and conversion story and agreed with the whole saved sola fide (faith alone) blah blah, and then the baptismal formula and as I was dunked with the word 'Spirit' ringing in my ears I came out of the water. .... let it be known I'm no charismatic, I have no problem with them at all, but I'm more tempted towards rationalism than anything, I'm a doubter. But when I came out of that water I felt this rush come over me, it was a bit like being shocked, but in a good way. I felt incredibly holy. I was utterly confused and stumbled out of the tank... it did not feel like 'an outward symbol' ...

I am well aware that my personal experience should not be enough to convince anyone, but I find it interesting as I read St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Augustine, and the Nicene creed above all else that the early church - in my limited knowledge - seems like it was overwhelmingly in favour of 'regenerative baptism'. Now if you stumbled onto this blog and you aren't one of my theology friends then I'll explain. Regenerative Baptism is the idea that in baptism your sins are washed away, and forgiven. This is an idea within the East Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and some Anglican and Lutheran churches (note *some).

As the Council of Trent says, "If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost" (John 3:5) are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema". Anathema means cursed to hell. I'm not sure I would go that far, but those Catholics, they're sticklers for orthodoxy.

I think it's interesting as I've never come close to believing that before, how it seems strangely close to the experience I felt. In St. Gregory's book he likens baptism to the Israelites crossing the Sea of Reeds (or Red Sea for you KJV folks). He says that as the Egyptians were drowned, so our sins are washed away. ... He also says creepy stuff about not being able to sin after baptism, but I'm going to ignore that for this post.

I think it's crazy how we can read those words from Nicea that Baptism is FOR the forgiveness of sins and still disagree with this idea. ... I guess it's like we can read the words "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" and ignore those as well.

I again am not sure where I stand on alot, I know so very little but I feel like I'm learning tons as I go along. I mean just yesterday I argued for believers baptism with Lance lol, but I think this position is alot stronger. Once again I am left with the uncomfortable feeling that in Protestantism the only place left is the teetering, splintering, liberal theology infested, Anglican communion. God save it.

Pastoral Issues

I've been wondering lately about the whole thing in Evangelicalism where people pick a church by pastor and kind of go from church to church untill they find the best one. I kind of do this as well (though I do study the theology lightly behind each of the churches). I wonder about the role of a pastor is in Protestant churches. The Priesthood of all believers kind of destroys everything Paul says about Bishops and Deacons and Pastors at the church, and having a Congregational polity kind of destroys the idea of God placing leaders in the church to lead the people in the right way, even if it is the unpopular way.

My Pastor and I are a bit at odds lately for lots of complex reasons but I feel like I'll probably end up just finding another church and go there. But there's another problem. The closest church to my house is the 1st Presbyterian church, which is led by a female minister who barely speaks english and preaches at a sunday school level, the music sucks, the pews are rock hard, and there's probably a congregation of 35 people mostly over 60. But because I am my own pope in essence, I can choose to drive 20 minutes to the 'cool' non-denominational church in the town, with friends my age who attend, good preaching and good music. But then again, why should I judge on those characteristics, maybe I should go back to the Nicene creed and find a church that is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, well I don't know if any 'Holy' churches exist these days... Ok so lets remove Holy and go with Apostolic, Catholic and One. I could go Catholic ... but then I'd have to throw away my bible. I could go Anglican... but then I'd have to throw away God (liberal Anglicans in Canada). I could go Orthodox... but then I'd have to learn Ukranian or Greek and make up a fake family tree.

So maybe I'll just give up on theology all together and go Mennonite Brethren...

Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/orth_cath_diff.asp

Here is a great article written by an Orthodox Christian just about all of the differences that exist between The Eastern and Western churches. It is interesting to me that after reading it, I realized that the Orthodox church and Roman church are actually more separated in many ways than the Protestant and Catholic churches. I find this really interesting, especially since Catholics forever tell us Protestants that we are the first and only schismatics.

I still have no clue which church I'll end up in it could be any of them, but it is interesting to know how different their views really are, and also astonishing to see how quickly one group will brand another with the title of 'heresy'. I guess it's inherent in Christianity because we believe so much in absolutel truth which is non-negotiable, it only makes sense that none of us can figure out what the absolute truths are.

Interesting Passage From Peter Kreeft on Justification/Salvation

"Protestants and Catholics agree that faith is necessary for salvation. The Bible clearly teaches that it is. Good works alone do not merit salvation. No one can "buy" heaven with enough good works, or good enough motives. The ticket to heaven is not being nice or sincere or good enough; the ticket to heaven is the Blood of Christ, and faith is the acceptance of that free gift. But the Church insists that good works are necessary too. This means the works of love. Good works are not mere external deeds, but the works of love. And love is not mere feelings, but the works of love (charity, agape). That is why Christ can command them; feelings cannot be commanded.St. James clearly teaches that "faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead" (Jas 2:17). And some of Christ's parables teach that our salvation depends on our charity (Mt 25:40: "as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me"). St. John of the Cross wrote: "At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love".It is not that we purchase heaven with our good works; Christ has already purchased heaven for us with his work of love on the Cross. We do not do good works to get to heaven, but we do good works because heaven has gotten to us. If we do not do good works, that shows that heaven has not gotten to us. For "you will know them by their fruits" (Mt 7:20)...Luther thought forgiveness was only external and legal ("forensic"). Catholic theology teaches that it actually changes our souls." - Catholic Christianity p.126

Very different from the Protestant idea, but I think Kreeft has a way of making Roman Theology sound appealing whereas many others make it sound repulsive.

Problems With Reformed Theology and Mark Driscoll

This week I've been re-thinking my Calvinism, I am listening right now to a sermon by Mark Driscoll on Limited vs. Unlimited Atonement. This might be nit-picky but I just am frustrated with him a bit these days.

First of all he keeps saying 'James Arminius' but it's Jacobus Arminius and he talks about Pelagianism and how he says that Augustine is a hero who proved it is wrong. But why do reformed people always quote Augustine and fail to accept all of his theology. For example he believes in Free Will, something all good Calvinists deny. He also believed and advocated at church councils that the Deutero-canonical books (Apocrypha) was the inspired word of God. And arguably (though a good case can be made) he believed in the bible only because the church authorized it and believed in the supremacy of Rome. The famous misquote (but still retaining the intention) of Augustine is after all "Rome has spoken, the case is closed".

I think I'm just tired of the way people prooftext certain thinkers and totally pull cafeteria theology. I do that, but I'm not preaching it to people. If I was a Methodist Pastor, I would preach what John Wesley said. I don't agree with Christian Perfection (I think it's heresy) but Wesley taught it, so I would. I just think that maybe if people have unique opinions they should be based on what the thinker actually said.

Look at this quote and try to guess who wrote it:
"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin."
That is a quote so Roman Catholic it makes me throw up a little in my mouth. And guess who said it. Maybe Brennan Manning? no too intelligent. Pope Benedict XVI? nope no Nazism, but MARTIN (effing) LUTHER. One and the same, founder of Protestantism believed that Mary was sinless. If Martin Luther were alive, he probably wouldn't be able to be ordained as a Lutheran...in his own denomination.

This is why Driscoll and everyone else makes me angry, they quote early Christians to pretend that their views are 'historic' but really if you think Augustine is the shit, be an Augustinian Catholic. Otherwise just be another fool who misquotes famous people.

I just find there are too many "all"'s in the bible if you know what I mean, to believe in limited atonement, and too many commands to obey for me to deny free will. So call me an Arminian - the worst of all slurs, but I'm just tired of the proof-texting and the Calvinist arrogance. And for the love of Wesley - there is a difference between foreknowledge and predestination... wow I really sound Arminian now.

However let it be noted that Driscoll does say you can be an Arminian and that most people believe it and that it's alright.

Finally Driscoll says Thomas Aquinas wrote one of the two most important books in all of Christianity, but Aquinas believes in merited salvation (though it is through God's grace - so really it's not super merited). So really he would disagree with Aquinas as well.

So finally we get to Calvin. Look at some of his quotes Calvin says "You cannot have God as your Father unless you have the Church as your mother". In a congregational (I'm assuming) church like Mars Hill, I doubt he holds to Calvin's authoritative view of the church. As well Calvin would punish by death heresy (anything other than his opinion) and I doubt that Driscoll cares that much about theology.

Furthermore I guess no one agrees with their denominations founder or whatever. And basically I have found that Arminianism and Calvinism both fail at answering these questions and fail at offering a full view of scripture, so in the end maybe everyone is wrong. Though I still haven't read on Molinism but I have a feeling I'll disagree with it too.

Ironies in the Protestant-Catholic Debate

Protestants disagree with the Roman Catholic Church because it claims to be infallible, and we all know only Martin Luther was infallible.

Protestants think the Catholics teach the precepts of men instead of the word of God, they don't follow dead tradition, they follow Spurgeon and Wesley's tradition.

The Catholic church says that they only believe in the initial doctrines of the disciples...but that Papal authority and the Papacy developed...so by following their original teachings you have to reject the Pope.

Protestants claim that salvation comes from faith not works, and then criticizes Catholics on the basis of the lives that they live.

Catholics use the bible to try to disprove Sola Scriptura.