Prima Ecclesia: The Authority of the Church in the Life of the Christian

Preface: I've studied apologetics for many years after returning to Catholicism in the early 2000's. I wrote blogs, and responded to possibly hundreds of questions for the years I was an active apologist on Xanga. I haven't really kept up with the practice for over ten years. The exchange below is a discussion I've found myself in as I have been publishing more videos on Youtube as of late, and this has sparked a resurgence of comments in my once "practically defunct" Youtube channel. Reformed Baptist James White has accused Catholics of "sola ecclesia" for many years in response to the Catholic critique of the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. In a debate on the issue of scripture between three Catholics and three Protestants, Patrick Madrid used the argument of "prima Scriptura" as a way of explaining the MO of the Catholic. I asked the other debater on the team, Robert Sungenis, on his view of "prima Scriptura" used in the debate. He said something to the effect of, he didn't accept the idea of "prima Scriptura", and Madrid didn't run it by the team before he used the concept, and apparently the idea has its roots in the teaching of Dr. Scott Hahn. 

My thought on this is, it seems to me, the Catholic holds the Church as primary, as the Church is in fact the "pillar and ground of the truth". The Church is the guardian of the "deposit of faith" and has the duty to teach that deposit throughout the centuries. Its material sources are "Divine Revelation", transmitted via Scripture and Tradition. And so, I'd like to coin the phrase "prima Ecclesia" as the MO for the Catholic. 

If this concept is ultimately found to be inadequate, I'll gladly reject it. 

However, if it's found to be helpful, please, direct all donations to my Venmo account @laurencegonzaga. :-), and you're welcome...

...with that... here's the exchange. I'll update this post, as more exchanges occur. 

Protestant 1: Sungenis doesn't believe the scriptures, which does not support Roman Catholicism. The average Roman Catholic does not know God's breathed words or their Catholic creations of dogmas. I do not agree with White about Calvinism, nor am I an Arminian, but a believer in Jesus Christ to be saved and a follower of the Lord.

Laurence: The mere fact that you disagree on the Scriptures with so many other "Bible-believing Christians" such as Dr. James White (Calvinism) and Arminians, should be proof of the fallacy of sola scriptura.

Protestant 2: That is a non sequitur. How does debate around passages of Scripture, or doctrine informed by Scripture negate the idea that Scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith? There is no more logical consistency to that statement than were I to say the fact that the RCC claims infallible authority to make pronouncements concerning faith and morals is evidence of demagoguery. Yet we know Christ promised to be with his Church till the end of the age. That where two or more are gathered together in his name "there am I in the midst". On the other hand Paul is constantly warning thruout his epistles of wolves already having infiltrated the church and worried for his flock when the time should come for his departure. What is the point of his being worried at all if we can nonchalantly say that all will be well because the flock is infallibilly led by Peter's successor?

Laurence: the other day I was walking around my town. I sat on a bench on a street corner with three Christian churches at each corner. Pre-covid times, they'd likely have services running concurrently of at least 3 persons at each church. Those churches may have the same core doctrines but certainly differences important enough to remain separated. Which one has the truth? Are the differences inconsequential? The point is not the debate, as debates occur all the time, as this video demonstrates. The issue is, what authority ultimately determines the winner when there is an impasse? The commenter above said he disagrees with the Calvinist and the Arminian, and yet all three camps would claim to be Bible-believing, with the Bible as their "sole rule of faith". The funny thing about every Bible-believing Christian is, it's never their own understanding of the Bible that's in question, it's always the other guy. Not surprising how that works when "the Bible is MY only authority".

Protestant 2: The way I see it the role of the Christian church is to proclaim and defend the "faith delivered once for all to the saints". Even most RC apologists will tell you church dogma must have either been taught by Christ and/or his apostles, or in germ be present in what they taught. If that were not the case why bother with what church fathers said, (Particularly apostolic church fathers said)? Any apologist worth their salt understands that the legitimacy of a church is not merely the ability to trace a line of descent from present church leadership to Christ and his apostles..but also the faithful transmission of primitive Christian doctrine from then to this day. Therefore, in one way or another any question concerning faith and morals is invariably to be answered by asking, "what did Christ and/or the apostles say?" When the RCC makes a pronouncement on faith and morals its not my understanding that revelation is ever appealed to..rather "guidance" by the Holy Spirit. What this tells me is that the RCC is using the same source material available to all when looking into the matter, claiming to be uniquely guided thru an otherwise natural process. As to who decides disputes in matters of faith and morals I first would like your response to this thought. If the bishop of Rome, in agreement with the other bishops settles a matter for you..why study apologetics? It seems to me that once we seek Reasons for any dogma church hierarchy decrees it raises the thorny prospect that it is these Reasons, and not magisterial authority which establishes doctrine.

Laurence:

"the role of the Christian church"
Can you point to this "Christian Church" for me? Wherever it is, I'll join it, if I'm not already part of it.

"church dogma must have either been taught by Christ and/or his apostles, or in germ be present in what they taught."
Agreed.

"the legitimacy of a church is not merely the ability to trace a line of descent from present church leadership to Christ and his apostles..but also the faithful transmission of primitive Christian doctrine from then to this day."
Agreed.

"in one way or another any question concerning faith and morals is invariably to be answered by asking, "what did Christ and/or the apostles say?""
Agreed. Or using reason and logic and guidance of the magisterium to make a decision if there is an impasse after debates in the church.

"When the RCC makes a pronouncement on faith and morals its not my understanding that revelation is ever appealed to..rather "guidance" by the Holy Spirit."
Can you give an example? And define "revelation", as a Catholic would identify two streams or "sources" of revelation, Scripture, and Tradition. Pronouncements on faith and morals would certainly draw from revelation and the rich history of Christian thought throughout the centuries. Reading any papal encyclical would demonstrate this pretty well.

"the RCC is using the same source material available to all when looking into the matter"
A protestant would have to assume that any oral revelation that was important for the Christian to know and practice had to have been written in Scripture. Catholics hold to traditions, either those written or spoken, and perhaps not written in scripture. Hence, the importance of the documents of Chruch Fathers, popes, councils, as part of the sources that Catholics draw from.

"As to who decides disputes in matters of faith and morals I first would like your response to this thought.
If the bishop of Rome, in agreement with the other bishops settles a matter for you..why study apologetics?
It seems to me that once we seek Reasons for any dogma church hierarchy decrees it raises the thorny prospect that it is these Reasons, and not magisterial authority which establishes doctrine. "
As I understand the meaning and practice of apologetics, it is giving a defense for the faith that one subscribes to. Apologetics is not me answering obscure questions that the history of the church has never tackled or settled. For example, the question of extraterrestrial life is not a question I could respond to apologetically. I can theorize and reason why I wouldn't believe it, but to my knowledge, the Catholic Church has never debated or decided on the issue. Abortion on the other hand, while not explicitly discussed in Scripture, centuries of commentary, moral theology, papal teaching, etc. has given me sources to be able to respond to the question apologetically.
If apologetics were me answering magisterial level questions, then it would be the very activity I object to as the practice of "sola scriptura", that is, coming to conclusions on faith and morals, solely on the basis of my confidence in my understanding of the teaching of Scriptural Revelation.

Laurence Gonzaga

10/18/20