One of the main differences between Catholics and Protestants lies in the question of where authority resides. While Catholics accept the authority of the Church and Tradition, Protestants claim to be governed solely by the Bible (Sola Scriptura), with each believer individually having the final word regarding his ultimate interpretation as far as doctrine and practice are concerned (private judgment or free interpretation of the Bible).

But in order to understand this way of thinking a little better, I have translated a fictional conversation between a Catholic and a Protestant that the apologist Dave Armstrong reproduces in his book More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism:

Protestant (P): X is a true doctrine because it is in the Bible.

Catholic (C): According to which denominational tradition?

P: Ours…

C: How do you know that your tradition is true and that theirs is false?

P: Because we are the ones who have the most faithful interpretation of the Scriptures, and therefore we are the most biblical.

C: How do you know that your interpretation is the most faithful to the Scriptures?

P: Because our exegesis is the most harmonious and consistent with the text, and therefore the clear teaching of the Bible.

C: But the rest of the Protestant traditions claim the same superiority…

P: I must say, with all respect and love, that they are mistaken.

C: How do you know that they are mistaken? Should not Protestants try to be tolerant of one another in their “differences,” especially on “secondary” points? Yet you are calling your brothers in Christ “mistaken.”

P: I am obliged to, because they have failed in hermeneutics, in exegesis, and I must be faithful to biblical truth.

C: But how do you know that they have failed in their method of interpretation?

P: By means of the Bible and linguistic study, and the consensus of scholars and commentators.

C: But I repeat to you: others claim the very same prerogatives and abilities.

P: Then once again I tell you: they are mistaken. They must have been blinded by their prejudices and presuppositions, or even by their sins.

C: How do you know?

P: Because they have arrived at mistaken conclusions about what the Bible clearly teaches.

C: Frankly, yours is circular reasoning. But even granting your answer, I ask you: How is that simple and unlearned person, a seeker of the truth, to choose which denomination is the one that teaches the truth regarding the Scriptures?

P: By seeking the one that is most biblical.

C: Do not start again (laughs). They all claim to be.

P: Well then, the one that is apostolic and has its roots in the primitive Church.

C: So the Fathers must be studied in order to determine who holds the true apostolic tradition?

P: Yes, I suppose so.

C: But what if you find that the great majority of the Fathers held a position on some doctrine contrary to yours?

P: Then they were mistaken on that point.

C: How do you know?

P: By the study of the Scriptures.

C: So when all is said and done, it is irrelevant what the Christian Church, or the Fathers, or the Church has believed throughout history?

P: Not entirely, but I must judge whether what they held is in accordance with the Bible.

C: Therefore, you have the final word, and so you are the ultimate arbiter of every Christian tradition and doctrine?

P: Well, if you wish to put it that way, then yes.

C: Is that not somewhat arrogant?

P: Not as much as a Pope and a gang of old men in red hats and robes presuming to tell me what to believe (laughs).

C: So you make yourself the final arbiter of every Christian doctrine, and yet you object to the Pope making infallible pronouncements every hundred years or so? How ironic! Not to mention that this makes you something like a “Super Pope.”

P: You may say it however you like, but we call it the primacy of the individual conscience.

C: So you think that your own individual opinion and “conscience” is superior to the combined consensus of hundreds of years of Church history, papal pronouncements, ecclesial tradition, and ecumenical councils…

P: Yes, because if a doctrine is not biblical, I must denounce it, and likewise any tradition of men, whatever the case may be.

C: But how do you know that it is a human tradition?

P: Because it is not in accordance with the Bible….

C: On the basis of which denominational tradition?

P: Ours…

C: I am leaving; I have a headache…

I had a similar discussion some time ago, debating with a Protestant, and it was truly frustrating to see how he was unable to break out of this circular reasoning. In his particular case, he was completely unaware of the difference between Scripture and its interpretation. For him, what he understood from the Bible was simply what it said, and those who interpreted it differently were wrong, and that was that—whether for not studying enough, for not having the Holy Spirit, for being blinded by sin, for having “inherited” prejudices from Roman Catholicism, and so on. It was also curious to see him cite scholars: if what they said matched what he held, their opinion was valid; but if not, it was not worth a fig.

When all is said and done, what we have is what could be called “cafeteria Christianity”: each person chooses which doctrines to believe, taking a bit from here and a bit from there, like the shopper who, with his cart, goes down the supermarket aisles and buys what he wants in the quantities he prefers.

Needless to say, this position ends up being not only unworkable for attaining the doctrinal unity that Christ demands of the Church (1 Corinthians 1:10), but also anti-biblical, for it rejects the authority instituted by Jesus Christ in the Church (Luke 10:16) as the steward of the mysteries of God (1 Corinthians 4:1).

It is no wonder that this way of thinking has blown Protestantism apart into ever smaller groups, generating thousands of denominations. Nowadays one can even find, among similar denominations, extremely grave differences. There are Lutheran and Presbyterian communities that support abortion and others that do not, some that support homosexual marriage and others that do not, which is nothing but a symptom of how deeply corruption has penetrated not only their praxis but their doctrine (it cannot be said otherwise of those who consent to and approve the murder of unborn babies and sodomy).

It must be said that we Christians of our own Church are not invulnerable to the dangers entailed by these ways of thinking; hence we find more and more “Catholics” with a mindset similar in many points to that of the Protestants, rejecting the authority of the Church even in matters of fundamental doctrine. There is no shortage of “progressive” Catholics who openly and publicly deny dogmas, as well as “philo-Lefebvrists” who dissent, directly or covertly, from an Ecumenical Council, freezing tradition and rejecting the teaching of the Church of today on the basis of their private interpretation of the tradition of the past.

In all these cases, if we do not wish to suffer the Protestant fate and find ourselves plunged into an idolatry of the individual conscience, there is no other course than to profess the faith of the Church whole and without mitigation. And that is why I too believe in the Church that is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.