J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
No deal! Your scholars have Zero authority to teach anything and to listen to those who have zero authority is to Blaspheme Jesus’ Catholic Church!
- Status
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Consensus is not authoritative. It is political but not authoritative. In fact it is the ad populem fallacy.
They may not be in the business of confirming their prejudice but neither are they protected from error. This is the intentional fallacy.
And when one understands the accountability that the regula fide provides, one then continues to not be accountable?
This part of your post begs the question, doesn’t it? Accountable to what, whom? If you are accountable to Jesus then you would respect the authority of the Church. If you respect the authority of the Church then you would practise Catholicism – not Reformism.
But you do neither. Instead you put down a lot of words and in the end continue to go your own way (thinking, hoping we won’t notice that you are still going your own way?)
You have not persuaded me that this is true. You have changed things. You have changed the Bible. You have changed doctrine. You have changed the definition of authority. You have changed the Mass, the Sacraments. Not only have you changed things, but you have not demonstrated an understanding of the things you have changed.
How can you decide what is true if you do not accept the authority of the Church to decide what is true? You have just finished singing the praises of accountability (to what, who?) and then you limit that accountability by allowing yourself to be ‘always reforming.’
If you allow yourself to change what passes as truth, then you are not accountable to truth.
Yours is a self-contradictory position which can be summed up as: you make allowances for Church authority except when it contradicts the privilege you claim for yourselves.
The question is why make allowances for Church authority at all? Does making overtures to Catholics carry political points these days? Perhaps in the wake of Beckwith’s resignation?
Just in the confirmation of your own will over the wisdom of the Church.
I have just noticed the obvious about your post. You have spoken at length on what you want to speak on but you have not answered St Felicity’s question which is: “Will you please explain how an authoritative teacher is verified in the Protestant ranks.”
Would you please set out the procedure, the critical path, the line of reasoning which supports the establishment of authoritative teachers in the Protestant ranks. Thank you.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
One swallow does not make a summer (or even a Summa) - it’s always possible to give counter-examples, but even so there has been plenty of convergence between the CC & large swathes of Protestantism: the situation in the UK (as just one example) has changed out of all recognition in the last 50 years. Maybe the old animosities are much more alive in the US, or parts of it. Smaller countries don’t have that luxury - we don’t have all those wide open spaces, so we have to try to get along somehow
Not necessarily. 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.
A final & infallible source is indeed authoritative - but the converse is not true. If it were, only the Pope would be a bishop - that, or the bishops would be no more tha his deputies: which, as Mgr. Gasser explained to the Fathers assembled at Vatican I, is not at all what is meant by the Council’s definition of the Pope’s fullness of jurisdiction. 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.
Isn’t the Supreme Court authoritative ? Surely it is, not in all things (that is not its purpose) but, for those ends which belong to its purpose.
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. 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.
Have we really nothing to learn from anyone else ? Why should it be out of the question for us to do so ? And if it is, why don’t we throw away the Summa Theologiae, the works of St. Augustine, the Vulgate, the Septuagint, & every other Catholic thing which has been influenced, even slightly, by non-Catholics ? But that would lead to the same narrow outlook as that of those Protestants who see paganism behind every bush.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. ##
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
How does this scientist lawyer analogy work with Biblical verses that say such things as:
Mark.10
*]15] Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
God’s kingdom is not merely for the well educated. IMHO–education can sometimes be a stumbling block.
ah! This is what I forgot to say. Aquinas was one who had so much hope in reason. In some respects, he believed one could reason with someone right up until the moment of his death and that reason was one route to wisdom; wisdom one route to faith and so on.
But he also recognized that by far the majority of folks on the planet toiled so hard that they did not have time to live the life of a philosopher or of a cleric. For them, he opined, God had provided the means of revelation.
This leads us to ask if what can be found by means of reason and what can be found by means of revelation are not self-evident in Creation.
One huge gaping hole in the theory of Sola Scriptura is that it leaves so many folks out in the cold – as I have already demonstrated in a previous post – without a reasonable explanation. It does not allow for Salvation by means of Invincible Ignorance.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Michael, please refrain from building strawmen. Surely you are aware that this is a discussion board and that the thread you started is a discussion. Any teaching that you wish to give us is then legitimately subject to responses from those who read your teaching. If you don’t want responses or if you want to edit your responses – fine – come out and say it. But don’t call that with which you disagree ‘debate.’ If you disagree then say why you disagree.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Ok, please answer the question:
“You have not yet demonstrated the ‘closeness’ of Protestantism and Catholicism on whatever it is you feel that they are close on.” Please demonstrate same. Thank you.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Ani Ibi:
michaelp:
michaelp:
How is seeing yourself as part of the catholic Church the same as recognizing the authority of the Catholic Church and her popes?
As for the apostolic succession of Evangelicals: how did that happen?
michaelp:
Usually how we participate in discussions here at Catholic Answers is that, when we provide links, we also provide excerpts from that material enclosed in the quote tags, and summarize what the material says, setting out its relevance to the topic at hand and responding directly to the posts of others. At the very least, it is a give-and-take process; multilateral, not unilateral.
michaelp:
michaelp:
michaelp:
You claimed that you were here to learn. Is that true, Michael? I must say that, so far, I honestly get the impression – in spite of your protestations to the contrary – that you want us to go to your websites rather than remain here and discuss the topic of this thread which is: Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?
Again, please do not build strawmen. This is a discussion, not a debate.
You have not answered my questions and therefore you have not clarified at all. Instead you have repeated a tendency on your part to use replies as a jumping off point to say what you want to say without regard to the contributions of others and I am not just speaking of my own replies.
How is seeing yourself as part of the catholic Church the same as recognizing the authority of the Catholic Church and her popes?
As for the apostolic succession of Evangelicals: how did that happen?
Actually, for the time being, Michael, I would be satisfied with an answer to my questions. Are those many issues on topic?
Usually how we participate in discussions here at Catholic Answers is that, when we provide links, we also provide excerpts from that material enclosed in the quote tags, and summarize what the material says, setting out its relevance to the topic at hand and responding directly to the posts of others. At the very least, it is a give-and-take process; multilateral, not unilateral.
Without an Evangelical teaching authority how are we to differentiate between popular Evangelicalism and whatever the other kind is called? Is what you are saying, for example, popular Evangelicalism?
Yes. That is true. We can do that without you posting a thread. In fact, I venture to say that we have done that already. But does doing that constitute a discussion? I don’t think it does.
What you are suggesting is backwards. If you want to make a point, then give us a link to your scholars and enclose the relevant material in quote tags, sum it up, and explain its relevance to the subject at hand. Also please be prepared to respond directly to replies and questions. That way we will know that we are in a discussion.
You claimed that you were here to learn. Is that true, Michael? I must say that, so far, I honestly get the impression – in spite of your protestations to the contrary – that you want us to go to your websites rather than remain here and discuss the topic of this thread which is: Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Then Vatican II must have been chock full of blasphemers
JP2 must have been a blasphemer - just like John XXIII & Paul VI; all of them listened to non-Catholics.Hans von Balthasar could - at a pinch - be dismissed as a blasphemer for being a Catholic Barthian, but for two small details:
- JP2 wanted to make him a Cardinal
- One of the Popes (either Pius XII or Paul VI - perhaps both) expressed great respect for Barth, who was a Protestant (& one of the greatest theologians in a century full of great theologians, Catholic, Protestant, & other):
"Karl Barth (1886–1968), once described by Pope Pius XII as the most important theologian since Thomas Aquinas, was the principal author of the [Barmen Declaration (The Barmen Declaration (1934)) and was the intellectual leader of the Confessing Church, the Protestant group that protested the Third Reich. His multivolume systematic theology, Church Dogmatics, is a closely reasoned and eloquent statement of belief and theology, and stands as the crowning work of Protestant theology of the early twentieth century."
Was Father (as then he was) Martini committing blasphemy when he co-operated with Protestant scholars to produce the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament ? That was in 1968 - & it is an excellent example of the co-operation in the study of Scripture for which the Council called. And for which the Church still calls. As this document shows. Or do
- 1. Dei Verbum
and the - 2. Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism
carry no weight ?
As for 2., see in particular section 183 and those following it. The CC is far more respectful of Protestants than might be gathered from reading only a sprinkling of documents; & fidelity to the deposit of faith is not in itself incompatible with listening to non-Catholics. Why is it so important to discount what Protestants say - or does it not matter that we & they have much in common ?
T
Truthstalker
Guest
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.
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.
M
michaelp
Guest
Guys, thanks for your time. Gottle, thanks for stepping in. God bless you all.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
It is important to seek and find accurate information about both Protestantism and Catholicism. That way folks can make informed decisions about where they want to be and what they want to do and how they want to do it.Why is it so important to discount what Protestants say - or does it not matter that we & they have much in common ?
As for having things in common: the truth of that notion must be examined too. Having worked happily and productively with *some *Evangelicals and other Protestants, I know that I have much in common with those individuals. Moreover I am grateful that God has given me those encounters.
But individuals are one thing. Corporate policy – for lack of another common term – is another thing. Knowing the foot soldiers is nice enough. But knowing the generals is critical.
Those things which, upon examination, prove themselves to be common values and beliefs are most certainly useful in demonstrating common ground from which we can genuinely work toward the unity which is so close to the Heart of Jesus.
Those things which, upon examination, prove themselves to be political rhetoric only are worse than useless for they lead folks astray, divert valuable time and energy from the vineyard, and inevitably break hearts.
When anyone proclaims a love of ecumenism not only is it important to ask how that person intends to achieve it – but why.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Hi TS! Nice to hear from you again. I have little to add to what you have said: it is, as usual, well grounded, well thought out, and respectful of dialogue. I learn a hekuvva lot from you and from the other CA philosophers. Which reminds me: I’m sure they would like to contribute. cpayne has shown up but the rest are still absent.
In any case from among the thought-provoking points which you have made, I find the one I have quoted above the central most one concerning crossing the Tiber or staying on the shore.
You will recall that once I started a thread entitled “How do you reason someone out of a position they haven’t reasoned themselves into?” We, as philosophers, were very attached to evidence, reason, dialogue as means to find truth. The assumption was that reason could find anything; that there was in effect a mind’s road to God.
But even more fundamental to reason is trust. For, if one does not trust in reason, then one has no access to reason.
Sometimes there are perfectly ‘reasonable’ reasons not to trust someone. Sometimes it is trust itself which has been broken. And as Scripture says: a sick sheep will follow any master – except its rightful master. (If you want, I’ll look up the source but I am in a hurry now because I have an appointment.)
Trust is broken when someone in a position of trust behaves in an untrustworthy manner. In the case of Luther, it was his father and his mother. Like Luther, some folks therefore learn to trust only themselves.
This has a reasonable use when dealing with untrustworthy parental figures. But it has an unreasonable use when that survival mechanism is wrongfully transferred to all authority figures.
Oh, let me be more clear. There is a difference between ‘authority’ and ‘power.’ Authority if you will is legitimate power. Sometimes folks naively blur the distinctions. That is how their distrust gets extended from folks who use wrongful and destructive power to the Church which uses authority – or rightful power.
There may also be the need to vent anger for prior injuries. And venting it toward a loving, protective authority like the Church may be the only way trust-injured folks feel safe. However this can happen both inside and outside the Church.
Finally, it may not be a question of reason or trust for some folks for whom not only trust has been broken but also cognitive integrity. Again this can happen both inside and outside the Church.
The long and short of this is that crossing the Tiber is hardly ever about comparing doctrine. It is intensely personal just as the Catholic Church Herself is intensely personal.
How folks can believe that Jesus could not read our hearts on this matter and provide for us by establishing the Catholic Church for our comfort, guidance, and protection is worrisome to me. But that leaves us on our knees in fervent prayer for the healing of those who have broken trust or broken cognition.
Why? Because it is essential to make decisions based on accurate information, clear minds, and open hearts. We can do our part as to being truthful and rigorous in imparting accurate information about Catholicism. But, as for clear minds and open hearts, what can we as humans do about that except pray?
A
AngelicDoctor
Guest
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.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
After reading Ani’s last post:
Trust is pertinent to a discussion of SS. To ask if Catholics can affirm SS is the same as asking if they distrust the Magisterium and Tradition. There is an almost instinctive “No!” In this model SS is viewed not as a positive doctrinal development but as a devolution: according to Protestants two of the three legs of the stool have rotted away, leaving only the one. It was the rejection of tradition (small caps: I mean by this both the traditions of men and what Catholics call Tradition, however you separate them) and the rejection of the Magisterium that, by process of elimination, forced SS to be defended. Without it they had nothing left.
And so Catholics need to be careful in attacking SS. First, take it away from some Protestants, and they lose their only lifeline to God. They don’t become Catholics. They simply walk away from Christ, who is suddenly unfindable. Secondly, recognize in humility that the Church, at times, and in places, acted - and perhaps acts - in such a manner that no sane person could trust it and it was only by a supernatural impartation of grace that some hung on in the Church’s darkest hours. Third, recognize that there were those who did hang on. And do. By the grace of God.
Trust is pertinent to a discussion of SS. To ask if Catholics can affirm SS is the same as asking if they distrust the Magisterium and Tradition. There is an almost instinctive “No!” In this model SS is viewed not as a positive doctrinal development but as a devolution: according to Protestants two of the three legs of the stool have rotted away, leaving only the one. It was the rejection of tradition (small caps: I mean by this both the traditions of men and what Catholics call Tradition, however you separate them) and the rejection of the Magisterium that, by process of elimination, forced SS to be defended. Without it they had nothing left.
And so Catholics need to be careful in attacking SS. First, take it away from some Protestants, and they lose their only lifeline to God. They don’t become Catholics. They simply walk away from Christ, who is suddenly unfindable. Secondly, recognize in humility that the Church, at times, and in places, acted - and perhaps acts - in such a manner that no sane person could trust it and it was only by a supernatural impartation of grace that some hung on in the Church’s darkest hours. Third, recognize that there were those who did hang on. And do. By the grace of God.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Without deception one always has something left: that something is the truth.
SS cannot be defended by means of logic. That has been demonstrated in myriad ways on this forum for as long as the forum has been on the internet. However it can be defended by demonstrating the value it holds for folks emotionally.
But how often do you hear a defence which sheds light on the emotional value of SS? I have never heard such a defence. I suggest that such a defence would be revelatory.
I do agree with part of what you are saying. It may be the perception that without SS, a Protestant may feel lost at sea. The reality, however, is that without SS a Protestant is not lost at sea.
It is normally not a question of Catholics attacking SS, TS, but of defending against attacks on their pre-SS positions. Again accuracy is critical. Strawmen only serve to cloud the issue.
I will recognize anything in humility which is true. If it is not true, I will not recognize it and it would not be humble of me to recognize it. Quite often it is a case of no sane person accepting the groundless accusations and strawmen lodged against the Church.
As I offered before, TS, what is claimed can be brought into dialogue and reasoned through. Thing is, not everyone is in a position to reason because their trust and their cognitive faculties have been broken.
So, yeah, choices are often made on the basis of emotion. And sometimes those emotional choices may also be reasonable; sometimes not.
Next question is: is it worthwhile to engage folks in dialogue about choices they have made from an emotional basis? Thoughts anyone?
My own preference is not to do so. I have found working on projects which hold value for both parties to be much more worthwhile: this creates friendships and provides opportunities to learn by first-hand observation.
I have had good and bad ecumenical experiences in the pro-life movement and in other charitable movements. But at least some of those experiences have been good. That’s a start. I will ask those of you who have had ecumenical experiences: what worked and what didn’t work? What did you bring away from the experiences?
P
prodigal-sun
Guest
THis is why the church believes that protestant denominations contain truth but only the Catholic Church contains the fullness of the trurth. Sure you can have key beliefs such as the Trinity and the divinity of Christ but the recipe for an awesome apple pie is in the small details as much as the large ones.
M
MariaG
Guest
But again, the problem here is the average person is not usually able to do this.
If one needs to rely on their own intellect to figure out which teacher is correct, that is alot of gramdma’s who are awesome prayer warriors for God, Protestant and Catholic alike, who would end up in hell for they simply trust their pastor because he is a good man and it seems to match up with their uncritical, but devout reading of the Bible.
I do not believe God left my salvation up for grabs like this.
M
MariaG
Guest
But you see this is the problem. WHO can one trust to be an authoritative source? As seen below, the non-sacramental Protestants, completely disagree with the sacramental ones even on the basicness of how one is born again.
When one throws away the authority established by Christ, how does one go about deciding which authority one should then now follow?
While we CAN agree on some things, and it is beneficial to do so, ultimately it will all come back to authority. The authority that was rejected at the reformation and tried to unsuccessfully replace it with scripture being the “final” authority, when no such thing is truly possible.
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?
M
michaelp
Guest
I guess the Pope’s proclamations today makes me have some mud in my face for supposing that bridges were being build? 
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Gottle of Geer:
Could you give examples of convergence please? And please define ‘large swathes of Protestantism’ more specifically. Who, in your view, are converging with Catholicism and on what basis please? Thank you.
I know that the TAC has been making overtures to Rome for some time now. Traditional Ang has been keeping us up to date on that situation. But Anglicanism is not the only denomination in the Protestant spectrum. Moreover the OP is presumably writing from an American Evangelical perspective. Correct me if I am wrong.
A claim was made on 51% Protestant about agreeing on essentials. Pastor Mike referred to Dan Wallace who said:
cpayne first raised the question of agreeing on essentials:
cpayne:
Ani Ibi:
continued…
I’m not sure to what you are referring. You quote my post, but I don’t see anything in there which relates to what you are saying – and I don’t understand your use of the term ‘one swallow.’
Could you give examples of convergence please? And please define ‘large swathes of Protestantism’ more specifically. Who, in your view, are converging with Catholicism and on what basis please? Thank you.
I know that the TAC has been making overtures to Rome for some time now. Traditional Ang has been keeping us up to date on that situation. But Anglicanism is not the only denomination in the Protestant spectrum. Moreover the OP is presumably writing from an American Evangelical perspective. Correct me if I am wrong.
A claim was made on 51% Protestant about agreeing on essentials. Pastor Mike referred to Dan Wallace who said:
Are the boundaries of heaven and hell the essentials and, if so, are they the only essentials?
cpayne first raised the question of agreeing on essentials:
Pastor Mike continued:
I said:
Ani Ibi:
A commentator on the Wallace page also said:
And finally on this current thread, Pastor Mike said:
So let’s see Church history, the early creeds, and the regula fide set out and proceed from there.
continued…
- Status