S
SojournerOnEarth
Guest
Not at all true. I think you should become familiar with Protestant thought and belief before making such statements. I find this absurd from the get-go.
- Status
To whom is your criticism directed?
S
SojournerOnEarth
Guest
JonNC:
Comments made by Poster MonteRCMS. I think there is an arrow or something indicating that, but there are various novelties in a new forum to be contended with. At least as a newbie I am on a level playing field with the oldsters in that regard.
I am frankly very startled at the sneering, hostile, contemptuous attitude I am discovering here. I had thought Catholics were seeking to reconcile (see various papal statements back to Vatican II) with Protestants. These Catholics seem stuck in a pre-Vatican II time warp and their idea of dealing with Protestants seems to involve a lot of spittle being hurled. I find it very ugly and un-Christian. I had thought of responding in some small way to Catholic overtures to Protestants, but the hostility is more than a little dismaying. It is not the one poster but it seems to be a whole subculture.
I doubt I will stick around this forum,
Comments made by Poster MonteRCMS. I think there is an arrow or something indicating that, but there are various novelties in a new forum to be contended with. At least as a newbie I am on a level playing field with the oldsters in that regard.
I am frankly very startled at the sneering, hostile, contemptuous attitude I am discovering here. I had thought Catholics were seeking to reconcile (see various papal statements back to Vatican II) with Protestants. These Catholics seem stuck in a pre-Vatican II time warp and their idea of dealing with Protestants seems to involve a lot of spittle being hurled. I find it very ugly and un-Christian. I had thought of responding in some small way to Catholic overtures to Protestants, but the hostility is more than a little dismaying. It is not the one poster but it seems to be a whole subculture.
I doubt I will stick around this forum,
Last edited:
Sojourner,
Catholics, like all other human groups, consist of a wide variety of individuals. I have been here for a numbers of years, now, and I have found the experience by and large, positive, not only in my understanding of the Catholic faith, but also in discovering wonderful Catholics who respond in the way you had anticipated.
I don’t know what this new format may bring, but I’m willing to stick around.
Jon
S
SojournerOnEarth
Guest
JonNC,
Perhaps I shall run into some of those wonderful Catholics and just let the trolls be the trolls, and let the moderators do their thing. Perhaps it is just unfortunate I ran into some of these “types” on my first venture posting.
And thank you, sir. I have read some of your posts. Most irenic in disposition, informative in content, delightful in composition. That is how I would sum it up.
Here’s to intelligent, respectful, informative and charitable discourse. Many years, as our Orthodox friends say.
Perhaps I shall run into some of those wonderful Catholics and just let the trolls be the trolls, and let the moderators do their thing. Perhaps it is just unfortunate I ran into some of these “types” on my first venture posting.
And thank you, sir. I have read some of your posts. Most irenic in disposition, informative in content, delightful in composition. That is how I would sum it up.
Here’s to intelligent, respectful, informative and charitable discourse. Many years, as our Orthodox friends say.
O
OriginalGabrielof12
Guest
A defense for sola scriptura belongs in the Liturgy of the Word Only. When sola scriptura is applied in the biblical context revealed from 2 Timothy 3:16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness:
It is in the Liturgy of the Word, where sola scriptura is profitable for teaching, reproof, for correction, for instruction for the faithful in righteousness.
When Sola scriptura is used as a doctrine, Sola scriptura cannot fend for itself, which becomes ink on a page subject to every wind of doctrine of men, sullied in multiple and different interpretations by anyone. When sola scriptura is used outside of the Liturgy of the Word, the scriptures used for teaching, correction etc., may fall into abuse of authority used by both Christians and non-Christians. Those in an authoritative position be it secular or religious is found using a sola scriptura outside of the Liturgy of the word, can and has lead to different factions of faithful communities and separation of faithful believers
When Sola Scriptura is used for which it was canonized for, in the Liturgy of the Word. It is in the Liturgy of the Word, where a sola scriptura is fully realized in which it’s biblical purpose is intended for; "teaching, correction, reproof, instruction etc.
In defense of a sola scriptura when applied for which the scriptures were canonzied for the Liturgy of the Word, becomes effective followed in the realization in the Liturgy of the Eucharist, when the Sola Logos becomes fully realized in our presence.
Thus a sola scriptura outside of the Liturgy of the Word, becomes abused and subject to every wind of doctrine made by men.
I would defend a sola scriptura in the Liturgy of the Word. When only the Logos or the Word of God speaks to us through the sacramental life within the whole body of Christ.
Peace be with you
It is in the Liturgy of the Word, where sola scriptura is profitable for teaching, reproof, for correction, for instruction for the faithful in righteousness.
When Sola scriptura is used as a doctrine, Sola scriptura cannot fend for itself, which becomes ink on a page subject to every wind of doctrine of men, sullied in multiple and different interpretations by anyone. When sola scriptura is used outside of the Liturgy of the Word, the scriptures used for teaching, correction etc., may fall into abuse of authority used by both Christians and non-Christians. Those in an authoritative position be it secular or religious is found using a sola scriptura outside of the Liturgy of the word, can and has lead to different factions of faithful communities and separation of faithful believers
When Sola Scriptura is used for which it was canonized for, in the Liturgy of the Word. It is in the Liturgy of the Word, where a sola scriptura is fully realized in which it’s biblical purpose is intended for; "teaching, correction, reproof, instruction etc.
In defense of a sola scriptura when applied for which the scriptures were canonzied for the Liturgy of the Word, becomes effective followed in the realization in the Liturgy of the Eucharist, when the Sola Logos becomes fully realized in our presence.
Thus a sola scriptura outside of the Liturgy of the Word, becomes abused and subject to every wind of doctrine made by men.
I would defend a sola scriptura in the Liturgy of the Word. When only the Logos or the Word of God speaks to us through the sacramental life within the whole body of Christ.
Peace be with you
Last edited:
S
SojournerOnEarth
Guest
I’m sorry. You lost me on the phrase ‘the Liturgy of the Word’ in your first line: exactly how do you define it?
S
SojournerOnEarth
Guest
You could substitute the word ‘Catholicism’ - or for that matter, ‘egg nog’ or anything else, and it would make as much sense. You are just spewing venom. Why, given the charge of Vatican II and various papal outreaches to Protestants, are you doing this? Do you deny the teaching authority of the church just in fact or more explicitly, verbally?
I am wondering, because it seems there are any number of these posts, in which so-called Catholics are either unaware of Catholic ecumenical discussions, which to my mind would be very strange to people attempting to reach non-Catholics on a Catholic apologetics forum, or there is just a psychotic defiance of Catholic authority at work. Perhaps these posts should simply be ignored, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. Help me to see how your post is at all charitable, for starters, and in line with the mind of the Church. Thank you.
I am wondering, because it seems there are any number of these posts, in which so-called Catholics are either unaware of Catholic ecumenical discussions, which to my mind would be very strange to people attempting to reach non-Catholics on a Catholic apologetics forum, or there is just a psychotic defiance of Catholic authority at work. Perhaps these posts should simply be ignored, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. Help me to see how your post is at all charitable, for starters, and in line with the mind of the Church. Thank you.
S
SojournerOnEarth
Guest
I’m Reformed, not Lutheran. Here is one distinctive.
We believe the books are inspired NOT on the basis of the church’s authority but because the Holy Spirit convicts us that they are inspired. Please see this from the Westminster Confession of Faith
To answer your last question:
We believe the books are inspired NOT on the basis of the church’s authority but because the Holy Spirit convicts us that they are inspired. Please see this from the Westminster Confession of Faith
We reject some of the books the Catholics accept for complex reasons. That would be another thread, or series of threads.
To answer your last question:
I’m quoting from the WCF found here . The bracketed numbers are footnotes.
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Okay… I hear you. just off the top of my head, I know that the apocryphal books were historical in nature and existed during the time of Christ. Though I 'm not sure all of them did. … you can go and check that.
Jesus must have been aware of these books, yet never quoted from them, calling them the word of God, as He did all other O.T. books. The Apostles also never referred to them at any time. They never quoted from them at any time. We know that the Apostles quoted from many O.T. books calling it the word of God. But not from the apocryphal books.
Why should we trust them now?
Jesus must have been aware of these books, yet never quoted from them, calling them the word of God, as He did all other O.T. books. The Apostles also never referred to them at any time. They never quoted from them at any time. We know that the Apostles quoted from many O.T. books calling it the word of God. But not from the apocryphal books.
Why should we trust them now?
E
exnihilo
Guest
On what basis do Lutherans judge the Catholic Church to be in error? If it is by interpreting the Bible to condemn certain teaching or practices then it seems to me we’ve gotten into the question begging realm as far as authentic interpretation.
O
OriginalGabrielof12
Guest
Your question addresses why this forum exist. I am happy to respond to your question. Here is a formal short definition of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines in the Liturgy of the Word.
ccc 1153 A sacramental celebration is a meeting of God’s children with their Father, in Christ and the Holy Spirit; this meeting takes the form of a dialogue, through actions and words. Admittedly, the symbolic actions are already a language, but the Word of God and the response of faith have to accompany and give life to them, so that the seed of the Kingdom can bear its fruit in good soil. The liturgical actions signify what the Word of God expresses: both his free initiative and his people’s response of faith.
1154 The liturgy of the Word is an integral part of sacramental celebrations. To nourish the faith of believers, the signs which accompany the Word of God should be emphasized: the book of the Word (a lectionary or a book of the Gospels), its veneration (procession, incense, candles), the place of its proclamation (lectern or ambo), its audible and intelligible reading, the minister’s homily which extends its proclamation, and the responses of the assembly (acclamations, meditation psalms, litanies, and profession of faith).
1155 The liturgical word and action are inseparable both insofar as they are signs and instruction and insofar as they accomplish what they signify. When the Holy Spirit awakens faith, he not only gives an understanding of the Word of God, but through the sacraments also makes present the “wonders” of God which it proclaims. The Spirit makes present and communicates the Father’s work, fulfilled by the beloved Son.
In Summary, since apostolic times, either an apostle himself or a letter from an apostle would be read to all present in the Liturgy of the Word as it is still practiced today in the Catholic Mass liturgy of the Word of God.
The best defense for a sola scriptura practice and not a doctrine, is to place it where it belongs in the liturgy of the Word.
Thanks for your question.
ccc 1153 A sacramental celebration is a meeting of God’s children with their Father, in Christ and the Holy Spirit; this meeting takes the form of a dialogue, through actions and words. Admittedly, the symbolic actions are already a language, but the Word of God and the response of faith have to accompany and give life to them, so that the seed of the Kingdom can bear its fruit in good soil. The liturgical actions signify what the Word of God expresses: both his free initiative and his people’s response of faith.
1154 The liturgy of the Word is an integral part of sacramental celebrations. To nourish the faith of believers, the signs which accompany the Word of God should be emphasized: the book of the Word (a lectionary or a book of the Gospels), its veneration (procession, incense, candles), the place of its proclamation (lectern or ambo), its audible and intelligible reading, the minister’s homily which extends its proclamation, and the responses of the assembly (acclamations, meditation psalms, litanies, and profession of faith).
1155 The liturgical word and action are inseparable both insofar as they are signs and instruction and insofar as they accomplish what they signify. When the Holy Spirit awakens faith, he not only gives an understanding of the Word of God, but through the sacraments also makes present the “wonders” of God which it proclaims. The Spirit makes present and communicates the Father’s work, fulfilled by the beloved Son.
In Summary, since apostolic times, either an apostle himself or a letter from an apostle would be read to all present in the Liturgy of the Word as it is still practiced today in the Catholic Mass liturgy of the Word of God.
The best defense for a sola scriptura practice and not a doctrine, is to place it where it belongs in the liturgy of the Word.
Thanks for your question.
Last edited:
O
OriginalGabrielof12
Guest
"Westminster Confession of Faith
IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God".[9]
I am sorry that your Westminster Confession of Faith IV conflicts with the bible, When scripture defines the (One Holy Catholic and Apostolic) Church as being pillar and foundation of Truth on earth. Not ones faith in God to be Truth itself. No one denies God as being all Truth and the author of scripture.
Please see 1Tim.3:15 15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God".[9]
I am sorry that your Westminster Confession of Faith IV conflicts with the bible, When scripture defines the (One Holy Catholic and Apostolic) Church as being pillar and foundation of Truth on earth. Not ones faith in God to be Truth itself. No one denies God as being all Truth and the author of scripture.
Please see 1Tim.3:15 15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
Last edited:
po18guy
Well-known member
Want some polemics? Read Matthew 23. If SS is not the ego, what is? Jesus did not teach it! It does not matter that we have 500 years of SS division to “celebrate.” We have 2,000 years of consistent Church teaching from Christ to this very day.
Jesus did not teach SS.
Man did.
Man does not save.
Jesus did not teach SS.
Man did.
Man does not save.
Last edited:
They’ve found the CC to be in error from scripture and from the position of the historical Church. Much of what is criticized is from "development of doctrine ". And some of those criticisms are connected to methods of hermeneutics
Last edited:
Sometimes ego is accusing others of “ego”.
We can have a discussion of what Jesus did or didn’t teach, and what he meant, without polemical accusations. Or, we can just have the arguments that have had no positive impact on Church unity for hundreds of years
Last edited:
O
OriginalGabrielof12
Guest
Blessings JonNC
The schism officially is a tear, resulting from the question of authority or primacy. Officially the Reformation is not and was not a schism, but a real separation. Which resulted from man made new doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola fide.
I should note that a Sola Scriptura and Sola fide does exist within the confines of the One Holy Catholic and apostolic faith. The distinct difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is when the word “ONLY” is applied to them by the Protestant reformers, in order to protest against the ancient Apostolic Catholic Church authority, established by Jesus Christ Himself and the sacred Sacramental economy instituted by Jesus Christ.
When a Sola Scriptura and Sola fide is used as when the Catholic Church Saints used these terms. They are placed in their respective Liturgical life and do not protest against the Magisterial, Church council teachings.
I much want to defend a Sola Scriptura for which it is intended in the Liturgy of the Word, and for which Sola Scriptura has been canonized for the Liturgy or Mass.
We have come along way, since the reformation days. Today, the separation can be reconciled, when we both work towards defining a sola scriptura and sola fide which does not hinder or cause animosity to each ones foundation of faith. I have hope…
Peace be with you
The schism officially is a tear, resulting from the question of authority or primacy. Officially the Reformation is not and was not a schism, but a real separation. Which resulted from man made new doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola fide.
I should note that a Sola Scriptura and Sola fide does exist within the confines of the One Holy Catholic and apostolic faith. The distinct difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is when the word “ONLY” is applied to them by the Protestant reformers, in order to protest against the ancient Apostolic Catholic Church authority, established by Jesus Christ Himself and the sacred Sacramental economy instituted by Jesus Christ.
When a Sola Scriptura and Sola fide is used as when the Catholic Church Saints used these terms. They are placed in their respective Liturgical life and do not protest against the Magisterial, Church council teachings.
I much want to defend a Sola Scriptura for which it is intended in the Liturgy of the Word, and for which Sola Scriptura has been canonized for the Liturgy or Mass.
We have come along way, since the reformation days. Today, the separation can be reconciled, when we both work towards defining a sola scriptura and sola fide which does not hinder or cause animosity to each ones foundation of faith. I have hope…
Peace be with you
Last edited:
S
SojournerOnEarth
Guest
We consider the WCF to be consistent with the Bible. I think it would take a lot of work to drive a wedge between the two. I doubt you have the theological credentials to make the case. There was the Word, and then the Church came from the Word, in our view. This is a fundamental difference separating us - one that should be probed in depth, not merely made an object for lobbing a verse at a time at each other. I have read the whole Bible, and I assume you have done the same. Please do not assume that I have not, and I will assume that you are familiar with the Scriptures. I don’t think there is some verse out there that will change either of our opinions. We are dealing with complex theological systems not so easily dismantled. It is rather insulting to think one verse will bring one down, as if it is a faultily built house of cards.
The church is not the author of Scripture, and does not have authority over it. Rather, the church’s authority flows from the Bible, in our view. From what I have read it seems Catholics think the Church wrote the Bible and has sole power to declare what it is.
I will attempt to respectfully disagree with you, as I know there are significant differences in our positions. I would appreciate it if you (plural) would have the same respect for Protestant beliefs that you expect Protestants to have for Catholic belief.
The church is not the author of Scripture, and does not have authority over it. Rather, the church’s authority flows from the Bible, in our view. From what I have read it seems Catholics think the Church wrote the Bible and has sole power to declare what it is.
I will attempt to respectfully disagree with you, as I know there are significant differences in our positions. I would appreciate it if you (plural) would have the same respect for Protestant beliefs that you expect Protestants to have for Catholic belief.
- Status