An Example of Hyper Hyper Hyper Dulia?

[PerryJ]

What I meant was, it is not the position of Sola Scriptura that everything must be explicitly supported by the Bible in total absence of tradition and church authority.

I do not believe that you are a strict Sola Scriptura believer, so this post is not directed at you.

I understand the point you are making. I disagree that it is a valid point. In reality they are picking and choosing traditions and Church authority to meet their needs. This is what Catholics are charged with doing.

If one refutes the Church, the Bible the Church defined, and the Bible does not state what the canon should be how do they define their Bible? It is clearly not self authenticating as there are too many variations. The NT was debated for centuries. We have two versions of the OT. I do not see any support for Sola Scriptura. If someone has something to support Sola post it. As of yet I haven’t seen anything of note to support this theory.

 

[PerryJ]

I want to add to my previous post that perhaps the first Protestants would not recognize what I am stating about Sola Scriptura. Of course they wouldn’t recognize what most Protestant now support in much of their theology. Most Protestant are far from the teachings of Luther etc.

 

[notsmart]

I want to add to my previous post that perhaps the first Protestants would not recognize what I am stating about Sola Scriptura. Of course they wouldn’t recognize what most Protestant now support in much of their theology. Most Protestant are far from the teachings of Luther etc.

But, this is not totally correct either, because they dont have to adhere to everything Luther stated, or thought because he never proclaimed to be infaillable on faith or morals, or made dogma of everything! So, they are not betraying him, he is irrelevant.

They hold what they believe not just as a puppet of Luther, but they analyze where he was wrong, (they get to do that) and where he was right.

 

[PerryJ]

But, this is not totally correct either, because they dont have to adhere to everything Luther stated, or thought because he never proclaimed to be infaillable on faith or morals, or made dogma of everything! So, they are not betraying him, he is irrelevant.

They hold what they believe not just as a puppet of Luther, but they analyze where he was wrong, (they get to do that) and where he was right.

Agreed, I was adding to the previous post that stated that Sola Scriptura has evolved and what I was stating would not apply to the first reformers. In reference I was stating that all of their theology has evolved.

I would make the same case against the first reformers though.

Sorry, back to Hyper Hyper Hyper Dulia! Don’t know how we got so far away from the thread. It is probably my fault. Darn it I hate when it is my fault!

 

[ralphinal]

I am sure that Ralph, the great de-railer of threads, helped get us off track.

Hey, it’s what I do

 

[cfrancis]

They hold what they believe not just as a puppet of Luther, but they analyze where he was wrong, (they get to do that) and where he was right.

Based upon what?

 

[notsmart]

Based upon what?

Good question, but my point was that this is not as easy as it looks to discect. Scriptura Prima is what I think TU is going on, not Sola Scriptura.

And, it appears that in a liturgical Lutheran communion, they do not object to anything that is little T tradition, as long as its not in conflict with their interpretation of the bible (which, if you look at it, is very simmilar to Catholic, minus a few big ones)

 

[TriuneUnity]

I do not believe that you are a strict Sola Scriptura believer, so this post is not directed at you.

I understand the point you are making. I disagree that it is a valid point. In reality they are picking and choosing traditions and Church authority to meet their needs. This is what Catholics are charged with doing.

If one refutes the Church, the Bible the Church defined, and the Bible does not state what the canon should be how do they define their Bible? It is clearly not self authenticating as there are too many variations. The NT was debated for centuries. We have two versions of the OT. I do not see any support for Sola Scriptura. If someone has something to support Sola post it. As of yet I haven’t seen anything of note to support this theory.

The tradition you are attacking has commonly been referred to as solo scriptura. That is, absolutely nothing but the Bible.

Now I want to make clear, Perry, that I think you have a perfectly valid point. Given that the majority of the evangelical world today does hold to solo scriptura, you’re perfectly correct to raise the objections that you have. It’s complicated but I think we just need to keep in mind who and what we’re arguing against.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Does that include the deuterocanonical books as well?

If we can establish that the canon Jesus used was the Septuagint. Of course, that raises the further question, which deuterocanonical books?

I agree with Jesus’ words, but there is no Scriptural proof that Matthew wrote the gospel attributed to him, or that his gospel is as Jesus promised, that it is inspired.

Why must it? The list of canonical books is not an object of revelation. It is the product of revelation.

Such as 2 Pt 3:15-16, but such raises the issue of Paul’s letter to the Laodicaeans (Col 4:16) and his first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 5:9).

Was that book recognized as canonical by the people of God? Do we even have them today?

It appears, then, you object to the Catholic Church’s position that God has providentially facilitated our reception of Marian beliefs.

Yep. Because it isn’t confirmed in apostolic writing.

 

[cfrancis]

If we can establish that the canon Jesus used was the Septuagint. Of course, that raises the further question, which deuterocanonical books?

True enough. And as the Bible is silent on the issue…

Why must it? The list of canonical books is not an object of revelation. It is the product of revelation.

Agreed. But you stated the NT Now, which revelation is correct: the one with 66 or the one with 73 books?

Was that book recognized as canonical by the people of God? Do we even have them today?

Peter, in 2 Pt 3:16-17, equates all of Paul’s writings to Scripture. We know Paul wrote the two letters mentioned.

Yep. Because it isn’t confirmed in apostolic writing.

To what apostolic writing do you refer?

 

[TriuneUnity]

True enough. And as the Bible is silent on the issue…

We use available historical data to investigate the situation. I am no expert on the DC books, so I really can’t discuss that area.

Agreed. But you stated the NT Now, which revelation is correct: the one with 66 or the one with 73 books?

The DC books were disputed by various parties throughout the entire history of the church. It would be safe to call them Scripture, but they do not have the nearly universal acceptance of the 27 NT books and the 39 OT books. Therefore, I would not draw doctrine from them directly.

Peter, in 2 Pt 3:16-17, equates all of Paul’s writings to Scripture. We know Paul wrote the two letters mentioned.

And did said letters teach anything different than his other 13 did? What was the opinion of the early church on these writings?

To what apostolic writing do you refer?

The 27.

 

[PerryJ]

Peter, in 2 Pt 3:16-17, equates all of Paul’s writings to Scripture. We know Paul wrote the two letters mentioned.

I was under the impression that not all of Paul’s writings existed when 2nd Peter was written. Either that or someone wrote it for Peter at a later date. The timing between the two books do not match.

If I also recall correctly 2nd Peter is written in a different style.

 

[sandusky]

ralphinal:

How is Papal succession and the Authority of the Church a different Gospel? It is not. Jesus set up a Church with a heirarchy. That is clearly in there. I do not see how it is different. If that Church has authority, and Jesus says it did, what is the malfunction?

The different Gospel comes about in the church’s requiring belief in the Marian dogmas for salvation—as you’ve stated they require.

That’s not the Gospel the apostles preached. Paul said that even the apostles, should they preach a different Gospel, were to be accursed. And, I would think that the different Gospel should be rejected as well.

 

[sandusky]

Mannyfit75:

The Bible in John 6:53-67 teaches that the Jesus’ flesh is real food indeed, and that his blood is real drink indeed. Jesus even said, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you.” The Jews had a difficulty understanding this and believe that Jesus mean that they have to eat his flesh and drink his blood, so they left him for good.

I think that’s what being stated by the Lord in Jn 6 is stated figuratively in the form of a Hebrew idiom in which “eating and drinking,” are clearly defined in the context of the passage as “coming and believing” (v35). The whole point of the passage is “how does one come to believe in Christ.” How does Jesus answer that question?

 

[RobHom]

Do people really care about the assumption? I should re-phrase to say- why do people reject that? Its not like it never happened in the bible before.

You have to place it the context of one who believes “sola scriptura”: “If its not in the bible, it didn’t happen”…or…"If it isn’t explicitly stated in uncertain terms it isn’t true or didn’t happen.

It constitutes something of an attempt to prove to a negative, which is generally considered somewhat impossible to do. Its like proving there is nothing in a vacuum.

It is also a method of differentiation to support a different theology and justify that theology based on negative connotations utilized to allege wrongdoings by the other party.

For me…as a Catholic…its just another way for someone to make a mountain out of a pebble…

 

[sandusky]

PerryJ:

For Sola Scriputra to work the Bible has to define the Bible.

Why?

PerryJ:

Man cannot define the Bible.

Then how did we come up with it?

PerryJ:

Nowhere in the Bible does the Bible define the Bible.

Then how did we get the canon?

PerryJ:

Sola Scripturist truly can not determine what to even read.

Sure they can; they have the canon.

PerryJ:

They do not know what is inspired unless they go back to the Church. This is not Sola Scriptura.

Why not? Inspiration doesn’t stop at the writing, but extends to the canon as well.

PerryJ:

When faced with this thought Sola tries to redfine itself that it can accept some traditions; but, not others. This is nonsense and defeats the whole purpose of Sola Scriptura.

Explain.

 

[jimmy]

Your original post had a lot of references, and you sort of grouped them as blasphemies. Could you be more clear about where and what the precise blasphemy is? (As in, “here’s what Liguori or x saint says, and here’s why it’s blasphemy”).

And could we agree on the following things, to form some common Christian basis?
(1) That 1 Timothy 2:5’s reference to “one Mediator” is a reference to Christ’s atonement (that there is no other way to salvation), and not to intercessory prayer (as the rest of the sentence, and the surrounding context, demonstrate), and that likewise, John 14:6 doesn’t mean we can’t have others intercede for us before the Father (and we can even pray to Him ourselves!)?

(2) That Mary occupies a special role as “God-bearer,” that she was proclaimed in prophesy by Isaiah, that God the Son voluntarily subjected Himself to her and St. Joseph (Luke 2:51), and so forth?

(3) That Mary was an Ark of the New Covenant, as the one called to bear Christ?

(4) That all generations are to call Mary “Blessed” (Luke 1:48)?

(5) That as Christ was called to be the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45), Mary was called to be a “last Eve,” which is why Christ refers to her by the name Adam refers to Eve by (John 2:4; cf. Genesis 2:23)?

(6) That Mary was “Kecharitomene,” or Grace-filled (Luke 1:28)?

(7) That intercessory prayer is thoroughly Biblical?

(8) That prayers can make an impact on the plan of God [not against the Will of God, but supported BY that Will] (Genesis 18:16-33; cf. Isaiah ch. 36-39)?

(9) That Jesus has specifically granted requests of Mary, even those He seemed He would not otherwise grant (John 2:1-11)?

I’m just trying to figure where the precise points of agreement and disagreement are between our views of the role of Mary and intercessory prayer, because I feel that a lot of misunderstanding plagues these sorts of dialogues.

I have always had problems with St. Alphonsus’s statements and those of St. Louis de Montfort basically because it obscures your number 1. Yes, intercessory prayer is good but these authors basically say that it is impossible to approach Christ without going through Mary. It in effect makes the sacrifice of Christ redundant or superfluous. It seems that what happens is Christ saved Mary and then Mary saves us through her intercession with Christ. But the scriptures(check 1John) clearly say that we have a mediator in Christ if we sin. There is no intermediary between us and Christ. To say that Mary or the saints are intermediaries between us and Christ I think is to distort the meaning of intercessory prayers of the saints.

As a Syriac Maronite Catholic, I would like to point out that for your #3 and #5 the terms are largely imagery. They are not meant to be dogmatic proclamations. Mary is not dogmatically a second Eve but typologically they are related. The same goes for her as the ‘New Ark’. These are images which explain the faith. Alot of times the fathers of the Church, and the scriptures, spoke by imagery or paradox to explain aspects of the faith.

 

[fix]

I have always had problems with St. Alphonsus’s statements and those of St. Louis de Montfort basically because it obscures your number 1. Yes, intercessory prayer is good but these authors basically say that it is impossible to approach Christ without going through Mary. It in effect makes the sacrifice of Christ redundant or superfluous. It seems that what happens is Christ saved Mary and then Mary saves us through her intercession with Christ. But the scriptures(check 1John) clearly say that we have a mediator in Christ if we sin. There is no intermediary between us and Christ. To say that Mary or the saints are intermediaries between us and Christ I think is to distort the meaning of intercessory prayers of the saints.

I disagree. I love the writings of both men about Mary. They are very accurate and very Catholic.

 

[PerryJ]

Why?

Then how did we come up with it?

Then how did we get the canon?

Sure they can; they have the canon.

Why not? Inspiration doesn’t stop at the writing, but extends to the canon as well.

Explain.

I am talking about Sola Scriptura: Sola Scriptura believes in the Bible being the rule of faith. If you do not have a defined Bible what will you read to find out God’s thoughts. One can not state the the Bible is self authenticating or that the canon was inspired because each city had a different set of books they thought were inspired for centuries. It wasn’t until the Church defined the Bible that the NT was canonized. Yet Sola Scriptura refutes the Church. It also refutes the Bible created by the Church. You have no canon. Does the Bible list a canon? No. Self authenticaty is clearly not true if one reads any history. Sola Scriputra refutes the Church so the Church can not be the answer.

Tell me where exactly your inspired Bible was defined and by who. Give me a year? Tell me where the OT and NT were canonized?

What happened to all the people that followed the writings or wrong books of the Bibles for all of those years. Were they sent to Hell because they followed the wrong teachings from the wrong Bible?

 

[jimmy]

I disagree. I love the writings of both men about Mary. They are very accurate and very Catholic.

Could you elaborate a little more? Can you explain specifically what you think was wrong about my statement?