Defense of Sola Scriptura

[moondweller]

tqualey:

Let me offer an answer which I thing was previously delivered by PR … while we can open the Bible today and see what Scriptures existed in the 1st Century - that were Divinely Inspired - the people living back in the 1st Century could NOT do that! Why? Because the Bible as we know it - complete with Table of Contents did NOT exist. It was not until about 400AD that doing what you said could be accomplished. Now, do you find that hard to understand?

My answer to PR pertained to her statement: “Here’s a (nonexhaustive) list of what “Scriptures” were in existence since the first century,” and the list she provided. NONE on the list were “Scripture,” and most did not exist until AFTER the 1st century. Context, my friend, context.

it is at this point that your reasoning becomes circular. Refering to the Scriptures - but not the Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) that gave us all the Scriptures?

No Scriptures were ever given to us by the Catholic Church. The same can be said about the the Orthodox Church, and any Protestants churches you wish to mention.

Now, hang on, MD. I think you are getting a little confused with the facts… Actually, God spoke to Abramham before He spoke to Moses … and God’s Word was kept by Abraham first.

Sorry, Tom, but you’re obscuring the facts. There were no Scriptures prior to Moses. Not until Moses did God begin to preserve His Word in this world through theopneustos, Holy Writ: the Scriptures. The only way you or I know anything about Abraham is what has been Divinely revealed and preserved in Scripture - especially the first Book of the Pentateuch: Genesis. It’s also how we know about things like creation, Adam and Eve, the Fall, the Deluge, and things like the Divine Covenants (eight Biblical Covenants in all).

The FACT is, Tom, God has preserved His Word in this world via SCRIPTURE, and He has done it since Moses. Deny what you may, but there is no greater authority than God’s Word.

 

[moondweller]

"Oral Torah: The Talmud
In addition to the written scriptures we have an “Oral Torah,” a tradition explaining what the above scriptures mean and how to interpret them and apply the Laws. Orthodox Jews believe G-d taught the Oral Torah to Moses, and he taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained only in oral form until about the 2d century C.E., when the oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah. "

Sounds pretty Catholic to me … and not even written by a Catholic.

The “Mishnah” is part of the “Talmud,” which also contains the “Gemara.” These are ancient rabbinical teachings on the Torah. They are not, never were, considered Scripture. Christ Himself confronted and rebuked many of the Pharisaic “traditions” of His day. He always brought them back to the authority of the Scriptures.

The Pharisees asked Jesus: "Matt 15:2 “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” Jesus answered: Matt 15:3 “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?”

In Luke 24:27 it is written: “Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.”

The theopneustos SCRIPTURES began with the writings of Moses - not before. The Jews could believe whatever they wanted to about some “oral tradition” passed down from Moses to rabbis; but what they needed to know about Christ and salvation was preserved ONLY in Holy Writ: the theopneustos SCRIPTURES. Keep in mind many of those same “orthodox” Jews who stuck to their “oral traditions” did not recognize the time of their visitation (Lk. 19:44). Using your words, does this also “sound pretty Catholic” to you?

 

[guanophore]

The “Mishnah” is part of the “Talmud,” which also contains the “Gemara.” These are ancient rabbinical teachings on the Torah. They are not, never were, considered Scripture. Christ Himself confronted and rebuked many of the Pharisaic “traditions” of His day. He always brought them back to the authority of the Scriptures.

Actually, the Scripture cannot wield “authority” because such activity requires a person. Authority requires intellect, will, and discernment - qualities that do not belong to the Sacred Scripture.

The Scripture is authoritative when it is interpreted by one to whom authority is given.

The Pharisees asked Jesus: "Matt 15:2 “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” Jesus answered: Matt 15:3 “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?”

Your perspective appears to exclude all those traditions espoused by the Pharisees, as well as Jesus and the Apostles, that do not transgress the commandment of God. There is nothing inherintly wrong with tradition. The Scriptures, both Old and New, were produced from it.

In Luke 24:27 it is written: “Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.”

Another testimony that Scripture, to be authoratative, needs to be interpreted by one to whom authority is given by God.

The theopneustos SCRIPTURES began with the writings of Moses - not before.

This is true, of course, however, prior to that time, the Sacred Tradition contained what God had revealed about Himself to humanity prior to Moses. Where do you think Mo got all that history? Do you think that God is too weak to preserve His Word among His people?

The Jews could believe whatever they wanted to about some “oral tradition” passed down from Moses to rabbis; but what they needed to know about Christ and salvation was preserved ONLY in Holy Writ: the theopneustos SCRIPTURES.

No, Moon. If this were the case,then Jesus would not have found it necessary to explain the scriptures in terms of how they spoke of Himself. Sacred Tradition is not to be separated from the Sacred scriptures. They are two threads, woven together. If scripture alone were sufficient, then everyone would have recognized Him for who He was.

Keep in mind many of those same “orthodox” Jews who stuck to their “oral traditions” did not recognize the time of their visitation (Lk. 19:44). Using your words, does this also “sound pretty Catholic” to you?

Are you implying that Catholics do not recognize the presence of Christ?

Unfortunately, this is true of the majority of Catholics. If they knew they were visited by Him daily in the Eucharist, they would act very differently.

 

[moondweller]

Actually, the Scripture cannot wield “authority” because such activity requires a person. Authority requires intellect, will, and discernment - qualities that do not belong to the Sacred Scripture.

The Scripture is authoritative when it is interpreted by one to whom authority is given.

When driving do you stop at a stop sign? Or only do people authorized to interpret what the sign says stop at the sign? In court may I present the defense that there was no authorized interpreter positioned at the stop sign? Would my defense hold up in court?

Your perspective appears to exclude all those traditions espoused by the Pharisees, as well as Jesus and the Apostles, that do not transgress the commandment of God. There is nothing inherintly wrong with tradition. The Scriptures, both Old and New, were produced from it.

This is incorrect. Scripture did not originate from tradition.

This is true, of course, however, prior to that time, the Sacred Tradition contained what God had revealed about Himself to humanity prior to Moses. Where do you think Mo got all that history?

From where ever he got it, it wasn’t Scripture until it was theopneustos, preserving it in this world via Holy Writ.

Do you think that God is too weak to preserve His Word among His people?

It’s not even the issue. How God has preserved His Word in this world since Moses is in Holy Writ: The Scriptures. ONLY the Scriptures are called theopneustos. It is never applied to “tradition.”

No, Moon. If this were the case,then Jesus would not have found it necessary to explain the scriptures in terms of how they spoke of Himself. Sacred Tradition is not to be separated from the Sacred scriptures. They are two threads, woven together. If scripture alone were sufficient, then everyone would have recognized Him for who He was.

No. This is a matter of belief vs. unbelief. One can cling tenaciously to tradition and miss belief in Christ completely.

Are you implying that Catholics do not recognize the presence of Christ?

No. I merely asked him if the result also sounded Catholic?

Unfortunately, this is true of the majority of Catholics. If they knew they were visited by Him daily in the Eucharist, they would act very differently.

Act how?

 

[T_More]

When driving do you stop at a stop sign? Or only do people authorized to interpret what the sign says stop at the sign? In court may I present the defense that there was no authorized interpreter positioned at the stop sign? Would my defense hold up in court?

When you are sued and forced to appear in court, do you represent yourself and hope you can interpret the law, or hire an attorney that does know the law?

 

[PRmerger]

This is incorrect. Scripture did not originate from tradition.

You cannot change the evidence provided by history, moon. For 400 years there was no “NT index.”

400 years! That’s the amount of time from the Pilgrims’ arrival on Plymouth Rock to present day.

[SIGN]Astonishing, isn’t it, that God’s word could be known and understood, without any Bible. [/SIGN]

God’s revelation was preserved by Sacred Tradition. God’s revelation came to you through the CC.

 

[PRmerger]

When driving do you stop at a stop sign? Or only do people authorized to interpret what the sign says stop at the sign? In court may I present the defense that there was no authorized interpreter positioned at the stop sign? Would my defense hold up in court?

This is a peculiar example for you to propose–as it countermands your own argument.

For, by your very own example, the “stop sign” is* not* the authority; the court is. A judge, with a will and an intellect, and discernment, is the authority.

Thus, I think your example is quite trenchant: the stop sign is Scripture, and until there is a court (the Magisterium of the CC), one cannot argue or defend one’s position regarding the Truth of whether one must stop there.

In fact, an immigrant from another culture might look at that stop sign and have no understanding whatsoever of its significance. It’s up to the authorities (i.e. people!) to tell him what it means.

 

[ncgolf]

The “Mishnah” is part of the “Talmud,” which also contains the “Gemara.” These are ancient rabbinical teachings on the Torah. They are not, never were, considered Scripture. Christ Himself confronted and rebuked many of the Pharisaic “traditions” of His day. He always brought them back to the authority of the Scriptures.

The Pharisees asked Jesus: "Matt 15:2 “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” Jesus answered: Matt 15:3 “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?”

These are small ‘t’ traditions and indeed the Lord rebuked them for this but the authority given to them was not removed … read further in Matthew 23:2-3 “2 The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. 3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but do not practice.”

Jesus recognized their legitimate authority but denounced their abuse of authority … not the authority. What authority was Jesus talking about … what authority did one have on the chair of Moses?

In Luke 24:27 it is written: “Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.”

Why would this not be true … is it not the purpose of Scripture to enlighten us about God’s plan for salvation. I don’t see how this affects Sola Scriptura one way or the other. Your statement is true whether SS is right or wrong.

The theopneustos SCRIPTURES began with the writings of Moses - not before. The Jews could believe whatever they wanted to about some “oral tradition” passed down from Moses to rabbis; but what they needed to know about Christ and salvation was preserved ONLY in Holy Writ: the theopneustos SCRIPTURES. Keep in mind many of those same “orthodox” Jews who stuck to their “oral traditions” did not recognize the time of their visitation (Lk. 19:44). Using your words, does this also “sound pretty Catholic” to you?

When was this writ … written down … what time passed from it’s passage from God to Moses until it was written on skins.

Was not the information passed and taught by Moses before it’s being written down Scriptual? Was not Moses commissioned by God to teach and lead his people …did Moses not wield the power of God.

Or is your definition of Scripture limited to the written word. If so then the earliest scrolls found are about 800-1000 BC …I believe, long after Moses was dead.

This is what the Tradition is … the living preservation of God’s Word … even though unwritten. Tell me where I it says God Word is limited to the written word only.

 

[SyCarl]

These are small ‘t’ traditions and indeed the Lord rebuked them for this but the authority given to them was not removed … read further in Matthew 23:2-3 “2 The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. 3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but do not practice.”

Jesus recognized their legitimate authority but denounced their abuse of authority … not the authority. What authority was Jesus talking about … what authority did one have on the chair of Moses?

Where did the scribes an Pharisees get the authority? Who gave them the chair of Moses? They took it themselves.

We should obey authorities when they teach correctly but Jesus also warned about the teaching of the Pharisees.

“How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Mat 16:11-12 NASB)

Paul says to examine everything closely and hold what is good.

But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil. (1Th 5:21-22 NASB)

How can we determine which teaching is correct and by what standard are we to examine things. You cannot examine everything if must accept everything the authority says, particularly about itself.

 

[Akini]

Please can anyone tell us which scipture or scriptures are we talking about on the subject of sola scriptura. Is it the bible alone? I belive only in the word of God rather than on His written word only. The Bible is God’s written word. It is not the same as God’s word, isn’t it? Hence, it would be helpful if someone tell us what is scripture or scriptures.

 

[PRmerger]

Please can anyone tell us which scipture or scriptures are we talking about on the subject of sola scriptura. Is it the bible alone? I belive only in the word of God rather than on His written word only. The Bible is God’s written word. It is not the same as God’s word, isn’t it? Hence, it would be helpful if someone tell us what is scripture or scriptures.

There ARE no Scriptures verses we’re talking about when discussing Sola Scriptura. That’s the irony! It’s an extra-biblical, man-made tradition, which no one adhered to prior to the 16th century.

 

[ncgolf]

Where did the scribes an Pharisees get the authority? Who gave them the chair of Moses? They took it themselves.

I don’t know how they got it. I will say Moses is estimated to have lived about 1200-1300 BC so it looks to me the Jews were pretty good at passing this down. The point is there is legitimate authority and we know both from the Bible and history that this authority can be abused so why didn’t Jesus just come out and say something like “don’t listen to them anymore”?

We should obey authorities when they teach correctly but Jesus also warned about the teaching of the Pharisees.

That is not what Jesus said in Matthew 23:2-3 though. “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you” does not have a cavaet about when to obey. There were bad teachers … yes … is it still not a problem today but I say again the legitimate authority to teach was not removed.

Paul says to examine everything closely and hold what is good.
How can we determine which teaching is correct and by what standard are we to examine things.

That’s the million dollar question, isn’t it Sy.
What are the attributes of goodness … biblical goodness? Biblical goodness cannot change, if it is truly good it would have been good yesterday, is good today and will be good tomorrow.

You cannot examine everything if must accept everything the authority says, particularly about itself.

Again there are doctrinal issues we disagree on but in my mind the thornier issues are those not specifically addressed. What authority speaks on an issue like in-vitro fertilization. I am not debating, right or wrong, but how does an individual seek the truth of items not specifically mentioned.

Does Scripture hold an absolute position (goodness) on subjects it does not specifically address? This is where the “living transmission of the gospel” - Tradition - comes into play for the living transmission on such current topics must be in line with the Scriptures.

 

[moondweller]

This is a peculiar example for you to propose–as it countermands your own argument.

For, by your very own example, the “stop sign” is* not* the authority; the court is. A judge, with a will and an intellect, and discernment, is the authority.

Thus, I think your example is quite trenchant: the stop sign is Scripture, and until there is a court (the Magisterium of the CC), one cannot argue or defend one’s position regarding the Truth of whether one must stop there.

In fact, an immigrant from another culture might look at that stop sign and have no understanding whatsoever of its significance. It’s up to the authorities (i.e. people!) to tell him what it means.

When you drive your car today and approach a stop sign, will you obediently stop, or will you drive right through?

 

[moondweller]

When you are sued and forced to appear in court, do you represent yourself and hope you can interpret the law, or hire an attorney that does know the law?

When you drive up to a stop sign today, are you going to STOP?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, SyCarl,

You brought up some interesting points… let me offer an opinion…

Where did the scribes an Pharisees get the authority? Who gave them the chair of Moses? They took it themselves.

You go from asking two questions to making an accusation that the Pharisees stole or usurped the Chair. I am not aware of any set of Scriptures that would directly show a passing of authority from Moses to the Pharisees. I do think, however, that this group came by their authority honestly. Why? Because Christ NOT only acknowledged that they had the Chair, but he commanded all to obey their teachings - just do not follow their practice. I think this is called inductive reasoning. Had they stolen the Chair, as you claim, I do not see how Christ could have told His listeners to obey their teachings.

We should obey authorities when they teach correctly but Jesus also warned about the teaching of the Pharisees.

While this may sound appropriate, SyCarl, I think it is loaded with pitfalls and ultimately puts followers of this idea on the slipery slope to ethical misconduct. The underlying question is, “Who determines if they are teaching correctly?” We have seen repeatedly how people tend to use their own “personal interpretation” when it comes to Scripture (as specifically condemned by Peter).

There can be no Sola Scriptura without personal interpretation. Why? When Christ established His Church on Peter in Matt 16 (and, that would be the Catholic Church) Christ gave Peter the Power of God to make whatever changes Peter (and his successors) thought appropriate. Oral Tradition, was in full force prior to the first word being written in the NT in 60AD. In 400AD the CC established the Canon and defined and are defining what the Scriptures mean. Christ never revoked this Power!

As Luther was discontented with the CC (and he had good reasons!) he began to develop his own religion - and his own “personal interpretation”. His efforts at altering Scripture, because Holy Writ did not agree with his view, are noteworthy. This break with the protective authority of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church of Christ means there was no longer a protection from teaching error. if you just look around yourself, you will see that error in doctrine is quite common. Having 20,000+ groups all claiming to be teaching the Word of God without error - yet all contradicting one another - should be a wake up call for anyone who is wondering why SS is such a problem.

Paul says to examine everything closely and hold what is good.How can we determine which teaching is correct and by what standard are we to examine things. You cannot examine everything if must accept everything the authority says, particularly about itself.

This is where the major problem lies - at least as I appreciate it. Indeed, we are to examine everything closely - and, we are to hold on to what is good. And, to answer your question of how can we determine this - the answer is quite straight forward: you go to the Church established by Jesus Christ as idetified in Matt 16.

Now, ther is a rathe hollow argument around that the words “Catholic Church” were never mention by Christ and, in fact, are not in any of the Scripture. The conclusion then is that such a requirement does not exist. The truth is, the words, “Catholic Church” can not be found in Scripture. But since no Church is mentioned, and we only have Paul’s statement that he was persecuting members of The Way - we must ask ourselves, what happened?

People in the First Century did not think like people of the 21st Century. Holding them to our standards is a false path with many misleading turns. There is a direct historical line from Matt 16 and the Catholic Church lead by Benedict XVI today. You believe in the Trinity, that Christ was True God and True Man, that the sin of our First Parents brought sin into the world and each of us is born with this Original Sin. All of these beliefs that I think you hold - are not in the Bible either - yet were defined by the Catholic Church.

God bless

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Jesus never so much as even mentioned The Catholic Church. The claim of The Catholic Church alone that Jesus promised/authorized all kinds of things to The Catholic Church alone is entirely, undeniably baseless. He said “church.” He never said, “The Catholic Church.”

.

JL: I didn’t say he did.

Then obviously, He never promised or authorized it - for anything, about anything, concerning anything, at any time.

I’m asking you to identify that one church Christ is building. You keep dodging the question.

We’ve been over this repeatedly…

I believe that Christians are PEOPLE. Thus, the assembly/ gathering/ communion/ body of Christians is… PEOPLE. Thus, the church is PEOPLE. And yes, it is one and it is holy and it is catholic and it is the communion of saints. I see nothing in Scripture that indicates that it is rather a specific, particular, geopolitical/legal, institutional, organizational, intracongregational denominational entity. As far as I can tell, all the promises God ever gave were given to PEOPLE. Not any denomination - yours or mine or any other.

But you are doing as you must. SOMEHOW, if self alone exempts self alone from accountability, there must be some justification for that remarkable, self-serving, self-exempting position! Problem is, it’s just self alone insisting that such is true for self alone.

… The point is, this “Tradition” is simply whatever it alone says it is and means whatever it alone says it means. It’s HARDLY outside, above and beyond The Catholic Church, it is wholly the creation of The Catholic Church.

.

Show me that sola scriptura saying, the WHOLE WORD OF GOD is NOW contained in the written word (scripture), you can’t.

1. Sola Scriptura doesn’t “say” anything. It’s not a teaching, it’s a praxis. It is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon in norming.
2. Who ever said that Scripture contains the whole word of God? Certainly not I. Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines.

How do you interpret those scriptures away, by going OUTSIDE scripture your sole authority

No. I simply noted EXACTLY what the Scriptures state. And they say NOTHING about The Catholic Church alone being infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable and exempt from norming. In fact, as I think all literate persons would quickly state - they never so much as even mention The Catholic Church. About ANYTHING. At all. Not once. Nope.

[2Thes 2:14 Whereunto he called you by **OUR

GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, BRETHREN, stand fast, and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which ye have been TAUGHT, WHETHER by WORD, OR our EPISTLE.

2Tim1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou STIR UP THE GIFT OF GOD, which is IN THEE BY the PUTTING ON OF MY HANDS. 7 For GOD HATH NOT GIVEN US THE SPIRIT OF FEAR; BUT OF POWER, and of love, and of a sound mind.

[2 TIM 1:13 HOLD FAST THE form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF **ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST which dwelleth IN US.

[2TIM 2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the THINGS that thou hast HEARD **of me among many witnesses, the same COMMIT thou TO FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS also.]

Here is the question again; Show me that sola scriptura saying, the WHOLE WORD OF GOD is NOW contained in the written word (scripture), you can’t.

I won’t because I never remotely suggested that. I agree with all the Scriptures you quoted, and note they do not state that there is one (and exclusively, solely, only one) teacher that is infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable and exempt from norming - and that specific singular one is The Catholic Church: whatever IT says is to rather just be accepted “with docility.”

… continues in the next post.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

…continues from the post above

The first “leg” of the rule The Catholic Church insists be used when norming ALL OTHERS (it itself exempts it itself from all norming - regardless of the rule) is the Tradition OF ITSELF - as it defines, chooses and interprets. Itself.

.

JL: Ok, please explain how the Church EXEMPTS itself from itself or whomever it exempts itself from.

Read your catechism # 87.

The rationale it uses is this (and ODD that so few Catholics here seem to know this!)

1. Jesus promised the Apostles - as a group - that WHATEVER they say is what He says, and thus they are infallible, incapable of error and unaccountable. In a “Freudian slip” it attempts to use Sola Scriptura here by norming this with Luke 10:16, always referenced in this regard but curiously, rarely actually quoted. Look it up. I guess Jesus was wrong to so often correct the Apostles and for calling one of them “Satan” (which one was that?) since the Apostles are incapable of error and unaccountable for what they say and do.
2. Whatever Jesus promised to the Apostles, He therefore promises to the specific, singular, particular The Catholic Church. It applies it’s dogma of Apostolic Succession (and insists on it fully ONLY within its own self although it has ZERO history to confirm this), all to justify “connecting the dots” from 13 Apostles to a denominational entity: Itself.
3. ERGO, since the Apostles were infallible, incapable of error and unaccountable but all OTHERS were fallible and accountable, then the specific, singular, sole, particular The Catholic Church is infallible, incapable of error and unaccountable.

That’s it.

Let’s examine: The whole foundation is based on Jesus promising this specifically TO THE APOSTLES. This is EXACTLY what the Catechism states. This is EXACTLY what The Catholic Church has claimed for many centuries. The whole apologetic depends on that point (or else the whole “connection of the dots” via APOSTOLIC succession crashes to the ground). Luke 10:16. It all comes down to THAT, not Matthew 16:18 which has to do with authority, not infallibility as the Catholic Church rightly notes. It’s all based on Luke 10;16, that singular verse, and how Jesus promised INFALLIBILITY and UNACCOUNTABILITY to the APOSTLES and thus (itself connecting the dots and itself making a whole lot of claims for itself alone) to ITself, exclusively. Read the verse. Jesus never promised that to any Apostle. The whole apologetic is founded on a factual falsehood. The whole house of cards comes crashing to the ground.

You are missing the point. The second “leg” of the rule/canon it insists upon for all OTHERS (not for itself) is simply what it “written” IN THE “HEART” OF ITSELF - as interpetred by itself. Read your Catechism # 85 and 113. It’s just itself.

Ah, that IS the insistance of The Catholic Church, and IS the position you are required to take - in the exclusive case of The Catholic Church alone. Self exempts self from accountability, replacing the issue of its correctness with the insistance that all just accept whatever it alone says “with docility.” Yup. CCC # 87, etc., etc. Ironcially, Catholics ridicule this rubric as an absurd and dangerous, and yet defend it as infallible.

…
JL: Well you seemed to acctept the doctrine of the Trinity from that very Church.

Actually, The Catholic Church was barely represented at The Council of Nicea. But no, I don’t accept it “with docility” because The Catholic Church said so.

Tell me, WHY do you think The Catholic Church feels the need to exempt just one from accountability: itself? WHY do you think The Catholic Church requires all to lay all that aside and rather just accept whatever IT alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking?” It regards all OTHERS as fully accountable - right here, right now - but not itself? Do you have a theory WHY it feels so strongly about that? I don’t, but I wonder if you do?

Thank you!

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[jlhargus]

. …continues from the post above

Read your catechism # 87.The rationale it uses is this (and ODD that so few Catholics here seem to know this!)

1. Jesus promised the Apostles - as a group - that WHATEVER they say is what He says, and thus they are infallible, incapable of error and unaccountable. In a “Freudian slip” it attempts to use Sola Scriptura here by norming this with Luke 10:16, always referenced in this regard but curiously, rarely actually quoted. Look it up. I guess Jesus was wrong to so often correct the Apostles and for calling one of them “Satan” (which one was that?) since the Apostles are incapable of error and unaccountable for what they say and do.
2. Whatever Jesus promised to the Apostles, He therefore promises to the specific, singular, particular The Catholic Church. It applies it’s dogma of Apostolic Succession (and insists on it fully ONLY within its own self although it has ZERO history to confirm this), all to justify “connecting the dots” from 13 Apostles to a denominational entity: Itself.
3. ERGO, since the Apostles were infallible, incapable of error and unaccountable but all OTHERS were fallible and accountable, then the specific, singular, sole, particular The Catholic Church is infallible, incapable of error and unaccountable.

That’s it.

Let’s examine: The whole foundation is based on Jesus promising this specifically TO THE APOSTLES. This is EXACTLY what the Catechism states. This is EXACTLY what The Catholic Church has claimed for many centuries. The whole apologetic depends on that point (or else the whole “connection of the dots” via APOSTOLIC succession crashes to the ground). Luke 10:16. It all comes down to THAT, not Matthew 16:18 which has to do with authority, not infallibility as the Catholic Church rightly notes. It’s all based on Luke 10;16, that singular verse, and how Jesus promised INFALLIBILITY and UNACCOUNTABILITY to the APOSTLES and thus (itself connecting the dots and itself making a whole lot of claims for itself alone) to ITself, exclusively. Read the verse. Jesus never promised that to any Apostle. The whole apologetic is founded on a factual falsehood. The whole house of cards comes crashing to the ground.

Actually, The Catholic Church was barely represented at The Council of Nicea. But no, I don’t accept it “with docility” because The Catholic Church said so.

Tell me, WHY do you think The Catholic Church feels the need to exempt just one from accountability: itself? WHY do you think The Catholic Church requires all to lay all that aside and rather just accept whatever IT alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking?” It regards all OTHERS as fully accountable - right here, right now - but not itself? Do you have a theory WHY it feels so strongly about that? I don’t, but I wonder if you do?
Thank you! .

JL: Most people who don’t have answers can’t make a point. When you are finished with your babbling doube talk and can make a point let me know.

 

[Newbie2]

I’ll totally adopt, believe and propagate the notion of sola scriptura when someone shows me a quote from the bible that it is so…not a convoluted implication, but a clear statement.

 

[PRmerger]

When you drive your car today and approach a stop sign, will you obediently stop, or will you drive right through?

Umm…I will stop.

Not sure what your point is.