Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?

[Ani_Ibi]

Gottle of Geer:

Maybe the old animosities are much more alive in the US, or parts of it.

Well, I dont know if that is true or not. But the person who started this thread is presumably writing from an American Evangelical perspective. Correct me if I am wrong.

Now, I am aware that American Evangelicals are not the only denomination in the Protestant spectrum. And there are many differences among the denominations. MariaG draws one distinction between sacramental Protestants and sacramental Protestans here:

MariaG:

As seen below, the non-sacramental Protestants, completely disagree with the sacramental ones even on the basicness of how one is born again… We agree that one must have an authoritative source to interpret scripture. But it still begs the question of how one decides who is the proper authority to interpret scripture?

estesbob and others have repeatedly pointed to authority as the fundamental distinction between Catholicism and the Protestant spectrum.

Now you say
=Gottle of Geer:

… it’s always possible to give counter-examples, but even so there has been plenty of convergence…

I concede that there are many informal agreements which can and do occur among individual Catholics and individual Protestants. This has made life infinitely easier and more joyful for those of us in the pro-life movement. But informal agreements and convergence are not the same. Convergence is about doctrine.

Pastor Mike earlier claimed that Evangelicals and Catholics are converging on the matter of apostolic succession. When I questioned him on it, it boiled down only to some Evangelicals claiming that they themselves are the successors of Peter. The Church will never agree to that and so that claim for convergence cannot be accurately made.

Moreover, the softening to which Pastor Mike refers earlier again is very individually oriented.

A more general orientation depends completely on the question of authority, specifically who is in the driver’s seat.

And it is not clear who is in the driver’s seat. That is a central problem to this question of ecumenism, as estesbob and others have pointed out.

One guy in the Evangelical driver’s seat, for example, has become Catholic. Another guy in the Evangelical driver’s seat has said some incautious things which cannot be seen as a ‘softening’ by any stretch of the imagination.

Francis Beckwith was, until he crossed the Tiber, President of the Evangelical Theological Society: He says:

My Return to the Catholic Church

James White is Director of the Alpha Omega Ministries. He responds:
Head of the Evangelical Theological Society Swims the Tiber:

Let me wrap this part of my reply with a question which I posed before and which remains unanswered.
Ani Ibi:

Is ‘ecumenism’ the latest buzzword among the Evangelical hierarchy and if so then what does it mean both theologically and

politically? Thoughts?

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Gottle of Geer:

Bishops have authority in the Church - they are not infallible, but they have a claim on our obedience as the lawful pastors set over those churches of God which are committed to their care.

Here we have a blurring of concepts. Authority is rightful power. As such it is infallible, the final word. And therefore if your bishops are not infallible – then they have no authority. Their claim on your obedience is ephemeral, temporal, circumstantial not always and everywhere as it is for all the bishops convened on one question in the Catholic Church.
Gottle of Geer:

A final & infallible source is indeed authoritative - but the converse is not true.

The converse is true. Authority is rightful power. Its rightness means that it is the final word and that it is infallible.
Gottle of Geer:

If it were, only the Pope would be a bishop - that, or the bishops would be no more tha his deputies:

Not true. It is all the bishops convened on one question which is the final word. Only twice in history has the Pope spoken ex cathedra.
Gottle of Geer:

If we want to be really exact, the only final authority is God Himself; since all authority in heaven & on earth belongs to Him in all respects.

And if we want to be really completely exact, Jesus gave authority to His Church on Earth.
Gottle of Geer:

Isn’t the Supreme Court authoritative ?

Yes. But its authority is not in question here. Its jurisdiction is in question. Its jurisdiction is distinct from the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church.
Gottle of Geer:

It does matter, because otherwise one is danger of saying, “I don’t care what you say you believe, or what you say you mean by the words you use to express your belief - what matters, is not your understanding of your belief, but my understanding of it” - if we adopt that way of thinking, there is no reason why we should not be accused of idolatry; because that is what, in the eyes of some, Catholicism amounts to.

Strawman. The Catholic Church does not adopt a way of thinking which amounts to “I don’t care what you say you believe, or what you say you mean by the words you use to express your belief - what matters, is not your understanding of your belief, but my understanding of it.”

This way of thinking has nothing to do with idolatry.
Gottle of Geer:

And by some standards, that is accurate. We can hardly expect - let alone insist - that our beliefs should be understood in their right sense, if we are not prepared to extend the same courtesy to others. That we are right in our own eyes, does not mean we are right in the eyes of others.

Strawman. The central question around the authority of the Catholic Church is rightness in the eyes of Jesus Who established this Church.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Gottle of Geer:

Have we really nothing to learn from anyone else ?

Catholics have plenty to learn from others. Ex Corde Ecclesiaeis one of many Catholic documents which underlines this belief.

…For the things of the earth and the concerns of faith derive from the same God". A vital interaction of two distinct levels of coming to know the one truth leads to a greater love for truth itself, and contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the meaning of human life and of the purpose of God’s creation…

But with this caveat:

…It is essential that we be convinced of the priority of the ethical over the technical, of the primacy of the person over things, of the superiority of the spirit over matter. The cause of the human person will only be served if knowledge is joined to conscience…

Gottle of Geer:

We are never going to begin to understand one another, if we do not listen to one another. Learning to understand beliefs we don’t & can’t accept, is not the same as believing them, so it’s not as though understanding them were a betrayal of our own convictions.

Correct. Is there a problem with this?

end of post

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I guess the Pope’s proclamations today makes me have some mud in my face for supposing that bridges were being build?

Oh, the bridge is there. In fact it might save you from having to swim. We do like to give folks choices in the Catholic Church.

 

[MariaG]

I guess the Pope’s proclamations today makes me have some mud in my face for supposing that bridges were being build?

No, bridges ARE being built. But we can’t oversimplify the issue and think that we are “agreeing to disagree”. We are simply trying to find WHAT we agree on.

It is still a bridge:thumbsup:

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[michaelp]

Thanks Maria . . .

 

[Teflon93]

I do not intend to judge any other Christians for how they take different approaches to obscurities found in the Scriptures. I respect their right to believe as they choose. I just mean to point to the fact competing interpretations lead to seriously conflicting faith traditions/communities. The man or woman who approaches the Christian faith has serious questions that they must be given a precise and authoritative answer to (“when can I be baptized? What does baptism accomplish? I have sinned greatly since my baptism, do I remain in God’s grace or need I express my repentance in some informal/formal way and to God alone or also to the community?”). Etc.

I just read an article in Commonweal by Luke Timothy Johnson arguing for the moral validity of homosexual relationships. I suppose exegetes could make sound arguments either way?..
But in the end, one needs a voice of authority (and I am not always confident in the authority of scholars… who do not always approach the Scriptural text in the objective way that you imply).

Even the “science” of biblical exegesis is conducted by human beings who cannot fully shed their preconceptions and desires.

Shoot—OT, but anyone who’s listened to any of the religion courses by The Teaching Company will recognize Johnson. I love The Teaching Company, but they really do need to find some orthodox religious lecturers and stop stacking the deck with folks like Johnson and Bart D. Ehrman.

 

[Teflon93]

I’d like to respond to the OP. Perhaps I understand where the Catholics are coming from. If not, they are willing to correct me.

You suggest there is a dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition. Catholics reject that in favor, not just of the “three legged stool” of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium, but in favor of an organic unity of Jesus Christ the Word of God with His Church. To Catholics, He is still speaking to the Church. He, not the Bible, and not Tradition, and not the Magisterium, is the Word of God, but that Word is expressed through two streams, Scripture and Tradition. Two streams, one source, and to the Catholic they CANNOT be contradictory.

Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium are His instrument (singular, not plural) to bring God’s Word to His people. He is that Word, so He is bringing Himself to His people. Audibly. Concretely. Authoritatively. Exactly, in many cases.

In contrast Protestants typically have a model of an inerrant Bible with which the Christian interacts with God mainly through the Holy Spirit and weakly through the church. God has spoken and Protestants look back at what was spoken then; God’s Word is a lens we see through that is limited by the confines of the 66 books of the Bible and whatever light the Holy Spirit grants us, and whatever understanding the church, however so fallible it is in our theology, can give us.

To the Catholics there is no reason for them to be content with a leaky bucket of Sola Scriptura when they drink from a river, in a downpour. SS is hardly an improvement to Catholics.

Protestants are rightly concerned at what happens, however, when SS is abandoned and the floodgates are open. For me the question revolves around whether the Church can be trusted. The Catholic will argue that it can be trusted because Jesus set it up and He is trustworthy. Then it becomes a matter of reading history. But that is off topic.

Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman’s a case in point for your argument. He was a fundamentalist whose study of the development of the Bible led him to realize “sola scriptura” was indefensible. He didn’t become Catholic, he abandoned Christianity. He is now a favorite of the debunkers and claims that there were numerous Christianities.

This is the double-edged sword of apologetics. It is necessary to argue for the truth because so many are led astray, but in doing so, we may also inadvertantly create more strays. When one has been lied to by people they trust, they may not gravitate toward the trustworthy but rather believe they can trust no one.

Still, Truth is Truth. It does little good in my opinion to honor a little lie in order to protect someone from a hard truth.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Truthstalker:

…For me the question revolves around whether the Church can be trusted…

I understand.

Teflon93:

Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman’s a case in point for your argument. He was a fundamentalist whose study of the development of the Bible led him to realize “sola scriptura” was indefensible. He didn’t become Catholic, he abandoned Christianity. He is now a favorite of the debunkers and claims that there were numerous Christianities.

This is the double-edged sword of apologetics. It is necessary to argue for the truth because so many are led astray, but in doing so, we may also inadvertantly create more strays.

There is a boundary problem here. It is not we who create strays. It is that some folks choose the unattached life.

Apologetics treads the thin line between on the one hand a Truth which may seem harsh to some and on the other hand empty rhetoric or even – how shall I say this – less than forthright rhetoric – rhetoric which is political through and through.

Teflon93:

When one has been lied to by people they trust, they may not gravitate toward the trustworthy but rather believe they can trust no one.

Yes. I understand.

This issue of trust is imho central not peripheral. It is also completely personal and oftentimes so emotionally fraught that there is little point in insisting on exploring history and reason. Folks may choose, as Luther did, to trust no one but themselves and sometimes not even themselves. Or they may no longer even recognize their true Master but follow any master who calls them.

And, with such broken trust, how vulnerable they are to predation!

Teflon93:

Still, Truth is Truth. It does little good in my opinion to honor a little lie in order to protect someone from a hard truth.

Yes. Some folks, however, may feel safer with the little deception. And that is their choice. This leads me to this question:

We as Catholics have the doctrine of Invincible Ignorance. In evangelizing those who flinch from history, distance themselves from reason, and who gravitate toward the safe deceptions: when do we tell them the Truth?

Or is Truth something we can tell? Catholics believe that evangelization more often than not happens when we do not even know it. That is the Holy Spirity convicting without our verbal interference. Folks simply observe lives led in Christian grace and a time comes when folks say “I want that.”

But if folks want talk and we tell them the Truth when they are emotionally not ready to accept the Truth then that puts them in a difficult position. They now have the knowledge which removes them from the position of being Invincibly Ignorant.

If we don’t tell them, then are they saved? Seems illogical, because then all we would have to do is never tell anyone and everyone would be saved.

Thoughts?

 

[Teflon93]

I understand.

There is a boundary problem here. It is not we who create strays. It is that some folks choose the unattached life.

Apologetics treads the thin line between on the one hand a Truth which may seem harsh to some and on the other hand empty rhetoric or even – how shall I say this – less than forthright rhetoric – rhetoric which is political through and through.

Yes. I understand.

This issue of trust is imho central not peripheral. It is also completely personal and oftentimes so emotionally fraught that there is little point in insisting on exploring history and reason. Folks may choose, as Luther did, to trust no one but themselves and sometimes not even themselves. Or they may no longer even recognize their true Master but follow any master who calls them.

And, with such broken trust, how vulnerable they are to predation!

Yes. Some folks, however, may feel safer with the little deception. And that is their choice. This leads me to this question:

We as Catholics have the doctrine of Invincible Ignorance. In evangelizing those who flinch from history, distance themselves from reason, and who gravitate toward the safe deceptions: when do we tell them the Truth?

Or is Truth something we can tell? Catholics believe that evangelization more often than not happens when we do not even know it. That is the Holy Spirity convicting without our verbal interference. Folks simply observe lives led in Christian grace and a time comes when folks say “I want that.”

But if folks want talk and we tell them the Truth when they are emotionally not ready to accept the Truth then that puts them in a difficult position. They now have the knowledge which removes them from the position of being Invincibly Ignorant.

If we don’t tell them, then are they saved? Seems illogical, because then all we would have to do is never tell anyone and everyone would be saved.

Thoughts?

You raise excellent points. This is why I do not consider myself to be an evangelical. In this day and age, people have access to the truth if they only avail themselves of it. We are not in the jungles of Borneo.

Sometimes living life in such a way as to be a good example to others is the best advertisement for the faith.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

You raise excellent points. This is why I do not consider myself to be an evangelical. In this day and age, people have access to the truth if they only avail themselves of it. We are not in the jungles of Borneo.

Sometimes living life in such a way as to be a good example to others is the best advertisement for the faith.

It is the little people in the Catholic Church who evangelize best and who evangelize longest. Maybe that is why have folks like Ste Therese de Lisieux rooting for us in Heaven. And St Padre Pio. And St Felicity.

 

[st_felicity]

…And St Felicity.

MY personal favorite!!! :extrahappy: :harp:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

MY personal favorite!!! :extrahappy: :harp:

 

[Teflon93]

It is the little people in the Catholic Church who evangelize best and who evangelize longest. Maybe that is why have folks like Ste Therese de Lisieux rooting for us in Heaven. And St Padre Pio. And St Felicity.

And why Mother Theresa gave Princess Diana a run for her money when both passed away in the same period.

 

[MariaG]

Thanks Maria . . .

:tiphat: