Cardinal Sadolet vs. John Calvin/ a few Catholic comments on the subject

Cardinal Sadolet was urging the  Genevan people to return to the Catholic faith. He wrote a letter to them. John Calvin gave a reply. The letter can be found here http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/calvin_sadolet.html

Here are just a couple responses to Calvin's view. These were found at Called to Communion in the comment section here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/play-church/

from comment 14 

“For seeing how dangerous it would be to boast of the Spirit without the Word, he declared that the Church is indeed governed by the Holy Spirit; but in order that that government might not be vague and unstable, he annexed it to the Word.”

Good for Calvin. As a Catholic, I’d point out that all Cardinal Sadolet had to add to that is this: “and in order that the interpretation of the Word might not be vague and unstable, he annexed the Magisterium to the Word.”

from comment 15

And as a Calvinist (or an erstwhile one, anyway), I’d only point out that “the Supreme Judge by which all all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture” (WCF I.X), so as to ensure that nobody sets up a false dichotomy between being led by the Bible and being led by the Spirit, and so as to make it plain that Calvinists look to the Word just because they believe the Spirit’s the one who authored and guides them through it. (Sort of like how Catholics think, actually, so long as we refuse to use excessively broad brush strokes on either side.)

comment 17

There is no principled difference between following the Spirit when interpreting Scripture, and following the Spirit when not interpreting Scripture. We could call the former “being led by the Word” and the latter “being led by the Spirit.” But they are both forms of “private judgment.” And that’s why the proposed ‘middle position [between Catholicism and Radicalism] is no middle position at all, but just another form of private judgment.

The ready objection is that there is no need to listen to the Spirit when determining the interpretation of Scripture, because one can simply discern its plain meaning. But a quick glance around is always sufficient to nullify that objection. This week, for example, Scott Clark, John Piper, Doug Wilson and N.T. Wright cannot even agree on what is the Gospel. Clark calls Piper a brother. Piper calls Wilson a brother who preaches the gospel. Clark holds that Wilson is a heretic teaching another gospel, and [gently] rebukes Piper for calling Wilson a brother. Piper and Wright cannot agree on justification. Michael F. Bird then defends Piper and Wright, against Clark. These aren’t adiaphora here. This is the “Gospel” and “justification”; it doesn’t get much more essential than that. And even highly trained (and obviously Christ-loving) scholars can’t agree.

That’s why God gave the Church an enduring Magisterium, as Michael pointed out in comment #13, so His sheep need not be confused.