Does Sola Scriptura lead to Moral Relativism?

[Protestor]

Sure. I agree that all forms of artificial contraception are sinful. So I would be referring to the Catholic take on the subject, since I agree with it.

I am referring to the morality of homosexual behavior. Generally, churches which believe that homosexual behavior is not sinful will also believe it’s acceptable to marry them. So I mean both, ultimately. Since we are talking about churches, I am not referring to secular institutions.

I guess I don’t normally link contraception to scripture, but I could be wrong considering I am disagreeing with Jerome on this subject. I believe that lust and intercourse in homosexual relationships is morally wrong. I do think that they should be able to be married. As long as priests and pastors are not forced to marry them I don’t see a problem with them having the same rights as a heterosexual married couple. I think I could be swayed if you wanted to argue that gay-marriage degrades society.

The moral issues he cited were for centuries held to be immoral, and have only recently been deemed permissible by certain Christian denominations.

I understand what he was doing I just wanted to know specifically what PC was saying as being wrong(sorry that sentence sounds weird). I think that this whole argument is making a big jump. I see that jump as being tradition moral values are Tradition moral values. Just because something is within the tradition of the church does not mean that it is absolutely morally right or wrong. The general thoughts of the CC on a subject does not make something the truth. The truth that is in the CC is within it’s dogmas. I do not consider all that is within the CCC or encyclicals or councils to be dogma.

We are getting into an authority issue which I know I am extremely liberal. How much authority is there and where is it is a major source of my problems with the CC’s position. If you like we can start another thread on that subject alone. It’s probably better not to throw pearls before swine though, because I think only G-d is going to change my opinion on this.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I guess I don’t normally link contraception to scripture, but I could be wrong considering I am disagreeing with Jerome on this subject. I believe that lust and intercourse in homosexual relationships is morally wrong. I do think that they should be able to be married. As long as priests and pastors are not forced to marry them I don’t see a problem with them having the same rights as a heterosexual married couple. I think I could be swayed if you wanted to argue that gay-marriage degrades society.

One’s view on birth control is a lot more complex than narrowing it down to specific prohibitions in Scripture. It has more to do with the purpose of marriage, intercourse, etc.

Priests and pastors will be forced to marry homosexuals someday. At least, given the current trajectory of the law. You or I might not live to see it, though. But yes, I was not addressing civil arrangements. I do think those should not be legal, for the reason you mention. However, in my original post, I was only addressing the issue of sin.

 

[Nicea325]

Uh, no. Did you read any portion of my response? Or any of what Per Crucem posted? Sola Scriptura is not the same thing as the caricatured “MY King James Bible Alone” nonsense.

Uh…yes. I have read the Lutheran position plenty of times. It still holds Tradition liable to Scripture.

 

[Nicea325]

No where. It would be a function of logic and how we determine truth. You don’t expect to validate a tradition by itself do you? That’s called circularity.

And I call your position a contradiction. Your words:

What we do disagree about is whether the content of that oral teaching can also be found in Scripture

Then how can you hold to the above as criteria for Tradition, if you just said it is no where to be found in Scripture?

 

[Per_Crucem]

And I call your position a contradiction. Your words:

What we do disagree about is whether the content of that oral teaching can also be found in Scripture

Then how can you hold to the above as criteria for Tradition, if you just said is no where? Then what is needed outside Scripture to validate it?

What is needed outside of Scripture to validate what? Tradition?

Tradition cannot validate itself. It should be noted Scripture cannot validate itself, either. Both positions would be circular, i.e., “We believe Tradition is Tradition because Tradition tells us that Tradition is Tradition.”

Whether a particular teaching is apostolic should be subject to the entirety of the deposit of faith.

The reason that Scripture is the norma normans of that deposit is that it is a fixed canon. We already know it is the word of God. There won’t be any more Scripture, any more apostles, or apostolic writings. Traditions can, however, change. False traditions can be introduced, etc. Therefore, a particular tradition may not be the word of God. The reason then that tradition is judged by Scripture, then, is to insure it is apostolic.

 

[Nicea325]

What is needed outside of Scripture to validate what? Tradition?

Tradition cannot validate itself. It should be noted Scripture cannot validate itself, either. Both positions would be circular, i.e., “We believe Tradition is Tradition because Tradition tells us that Tradition is Tradition.”

Whether a particular teaching is apostolic should be subject to the entirety of the deposit of faith.

**The reason that Scripture is the **norma normans ****of that deposit is that it is a fixed canon. We already know it is the word of God. There won’t be any more Scripture, any more apostles, or apostolic writings. Traditions can, however, change. False traditions can be introduced, etc. Therefore, a particular tradition may not be the word of God. The reason then that tradition is judged by Scripture, then, is to insure it is apostolic.

Again…you are adding an aspect to the ancient church, which never held Scripture is the norm. When,where, and who decided? The church as a whole declared Scripture as the “norm” or was it later invented to make folks believe it was always the norm?

Traditions can change? [Tr]aditions or [t]raditions? Which Tradition has changed?
Name one?

Exactly! Precisely why SS is not an Apostolic Tradition because it has changed over the course of 500 years.

 

[christus_vincit]

Traditions can, however, change. False traditions can be introduced, etc. Therefore, a particular tradition may not be the word of God. The reason then that tradition is judged by Scripture, then, is to insure it is apostolic.

Traditions with a capital “T” and traditions with a lowercase “t” are not to be held to the same standard. Sacred Tradition, although living and active in the life of the Church, does not change while traditions can and do change.

Tradition and Scripture are not identical entities, but both are divinely revealed and form the deposit of Faith. The subordination of Tradition to Scripture was not a practice of the Apostles or the Fathers of the Church. This fact shaped Christianity for 1500 years.

 

[marywarfield]

What is needed outside of Scripture to validate what? Tradition?

Tradition cannot validate itself. It should be noted Scripture cannot validate itself, either. Both positions would be circular, i.e., “We believe Tradition is Tradition because Tradition tells us that Tradition is Tradition.”

Whether a particular teaching is apostolic should be subject to the entirety of the deposit of faith.

The reason that Scripture is the norma normans of that deposit is that it is a fixed canon. We already know it is the word of God. There won’t be any more Scripture, any more apostles, or apostolic writings. Traditions can, however, change. False traditions can be introduced, etc. Therefore, a particular tradition may not be the word of God. The reason then that tradition is judged by Scripture, then, is to insure it is apostolic.

More accurately:
The reason then that tradition is judged by Scripture, then, is to insure it is
apostolic, according to traditions judging which Scripture is apostolic.

Lol. Talk about circular! You ate chasing your tail!

 

[steido01]

What is needed outside of Scripture to validate what? Tradition?

Tradition cannot validate itself. It should be noted Scripture cannot validate itself, either. Both positions would be circular, i.e., “We believe Tradition is Tradition because Tradition tells us that Tradition is Tradition.”

Whether a particular teaching is apostolic should be subject to the entirety of the deposit of faith.

The reason that Scripture is the norma normans of that deposit is that it is a fixed canon. We already know it is the word of God. There won’t be any more Scripture, any more apostles, or apostolic writings. Traditions can, however, change. False traditions can be introduced, etc. Therefore, a particular tradition may not be the word of God. The reason then that tradition is judged by Scripture, then, is to insure it is apostolic.

‘Ensure;’ not ‘insure.’

Expertly stated, and much more clear than my original attempts.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Again…you are adding an aspect to the ancient church. Scripture is the norm? When,where, and who decided? The church as a whole declared as the “norm” or was it later invented to make folks believe it was always the norm?

The church doesn’t decide that God is the final authority. God sort of does that.

Traditions can change? [Tr]aditions or [t]raditions? What has changed about the Hypostatic Union?

Nothing. You’d have to evaluate it on a case by case basis.

Exactly! Precisely why SS is not an Apostolic Tradition because it has changed over the course of 500 years.

No it hasn’t. Even if it had, however, we are not claiming that it is a dogma passed on by the apostles.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Traditions with a capital “T” and traditions with a lowercase “t” are not to be held to the same standard. Sacred Tradition, although living and active in the life of the Church, does not change while traditions can and do change.

I agree. And that’s precisely why we reject some aspects of Catholic dogma. Because they have changed or been added.

Tradition and Scripture are not identical entities, but both are divinely revealed and form the deposit of Faith. The subordination of Tradition to Scripture was not a practice of the Apostles or the Fathers of the Church. This fact shaped Christianity for 1500 years.

Yes, they’re both divinely revealed. However, we would argue the content is the same.

 

[Per_Crucem]

More accurately:
The reason then that tradition is judged by Scripture, then, is to insure it is
apostolic, according to traditions judging which Scripture is apostolic.

Lol. Talk about circular! You ate chasing your tail!

It’s not circular at all. How is Scripture judging Tradition and Tradition being instrumental in what was reckoned by the church as inspired circular?

 

[christus_vincit]

I agree. And that’s precisely why we reject some aspects of Catholic dogma. Because they have changed or been added.

Lowercase “t” traditions are not part of Catholic dogma. They are simply customs or disciplines, such as priestly celibacy, that are not divine in origin. The faithful are called to adhere to these traditions with obedience, not the divine faith owed to Revelation.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Lowercase “t” traditions are not part of Catholic dogma. They are simply customs or disciplines, such as priestly celibacy, that are not divine in origin. The faithful are called to adhere to this traditions with obedience, not the divine faith owed to Revelation.

Yes, but I am not talking about “t” tradition. I am talking about what Rome claims is uppercase Tradition.

 

[christus_vincit]

Yes, but I am not talking about “t” tradition. I am talking about what Rome claims is uppercase Tradition.

Lol! I apologize. I can’t keep up with the Tradition/tradition thing. That said, the Church can’t change Tradition.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Lol! I apologize. I can’t keep up with the Tradition/tradition thing. That said, the Church can’t change Tradition.

I agree, christus, and that’s why we are separated. We do believe that the apostolic deposit was changed by the papacy. I understand you disagree. However, the material disagreement is not whether apostolic teaching that was passed down alongside Scripture is authoritative. Rather, it’s that we don’t think some of what you possess was passed down by the apostles.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Nicea325
Again…you are adding an aspect to the ancient church. Scripture is the norm? When,where, and who decided? The church as a whole declared as the “norm” or was it later invented to make folks believe it was always the norm?

The church doesn’t decide that God is the final authority. God sort of does that.

The issue is not whether the church knows or does not know WHO is the final authority. You danced around it my friend. What on earth makes you believe the CC does not know God is the final authority? Apparently you know the ancient church never declared Scripture is “the” norm. Evidently an invention no where taught in the early church.

Quote:
Traditions can change? [Tr]aditions or [t]raditions? What has changed about the Hypostatic Union?

Nothing. You’d have to evaluate it on a case by case basis.

Okay,so why would say Traditions change?

Quote:

Exactly! Precisely why SS is not an Apostolic Tradition because it has changed over the course of 500 years.

No it hasn’t. Even if it had, however, we are not claiming that it is a dogma passed on by the apostles

It hasn’t? So all non-Catholics hold to the same understanding of SS? Case in point, the Trinity,Incarnation,Hpostatic Union,Heaven, Hell? Don’t all orthodox Christians agree on those key doctrines?

Which obviously means:

It was invented much later and no where taught by the early church.

I do not know why SS advocates cannot admit it SS was NOT taught in the early church.

 

[steido01]

It hasn’t? So all non-Catholics hold to the same understanding of SS? Case in point, the Trinity,Incarnation,Hpostatic Union,Heaven, Hell? Don’t all orthodox Christians agree on those key doctrines?

False conclusion. SS hasn’t changed; some communions simply don’t use it, or have used something else with similar terminology and call it SS. Kinda like how the Mormons claim that their Jesus is divine, but not really.

 

[marywarfield]

It’s not circular at all. How is Scripture judging Tradition and Tradition being instrumental in what was reckoned by the church as inspired circular?

Tradition judges Scripture
Scripture judges Tradition.

You don’t see circular?

 

[marywarfield]

St. Nick ain’t in the Bible either. But he still comes
down Catholic chimneys with presents.