Does Sola Scriptura lead to Moral Relativism?

[House_Harkonnen]

Indeed. The problem comes in determining what it is that scripture really teaches. It seems that since scripture teaches so many different things for so many different readers, it follows that if scripture is true, then truth must be relative to the reader.

Why? Scripture is true regardless of who is interpreting it, there are of course errant interpretations. That’s why the church needs to testify to the truth of scripture. But the church’s doctrines are always normed by scripture, that’s sola Scriptura. If not, then the church is putting its doctrines over scripture. I don’t believe that’s consistent nor logical.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Yes, I’ve seen that notion. But I am quite sure that is NOT the reason the person I addressed has in mind. If you read his comments, I reckon he’d rather we were hateful toward him and his church. Can’t be a martyr and a victim unless you’re called something really noxious.

Not trying to be a martyr at all.

I just wish your church was consistent. Am I to accept what your church said about folks like myself 50 years ago, or today?

Why would I want to engage such a church which changes based on whims.

Yes your church is much kinder and gentler then it was hundreds of years ago, this is to its credit. But was it wrong then? Why the change?

That’s why I find the title terribly patronizing.

 

[christus_vincit]

Why would I want to engage such a church which changes based on whims.

I don’t know. We’ve been trying to figure that out for 500 years. You are always welcome back into the fold.

 

[St_Francis]

Not trying to be a martyr at all.

I just wish your church was consistent. Am I to accept what your church said about folks like myself 50 years ago, or today?

Why would I want to engage such a church which changes based on whims.

Yes your church is much kinder and gentler then it was hundreds of years ago, this is to its credit. But was it wrong then? Why the change?

From the Catholic point of view, 500 years ago, Catholics in various places started preaching heresy and leading people away from the truth and from God, imperiling people’s eternal souls.

Now we have people who were raised in those denominations, in this well-established situation, and we teach that those who do not know about Catholicism, who cannot be held responsible for their situation, are not “formal heretics,” altho they remain “material heretics.”

So it is not the Church which has changed but the people it is describing.

That’s why I find the title terribly patronizing.

You seem to think the Catholic Church is somehow being “patronizing” when pointing out a truth in a difference between diffferent people. In reality, no Catholic should be patronizing as we are each to be humbly grateful to God for our faith. None of us should consider ourselves superior to someone else simply because we are all sinners, and any good we have in us is from God, not ourselves.

 

[Zachary]

Are you concurring with my notion that the person I replied to kinda wants to be offended?

Nothing to do with my post (I don’t think), but sounds reasonable.

Yes, I agree with you 100% (i’d never be accused of being a good writer lol)

Too many times i’m seeing people come to CAF, enter a discussion and take offense. They then mention they are offended and expect apology instead of trying to find context and perspective. In the end, you being offended doesnt make me wrong.

 

[steido01]

From the Catholic point of view, 500 years ago, Catholics in various places started preaching heresy and leading people away from the truth and from God, imperiling people’s eternal souls.

Now we have people who were raised in those denominations, in this well-established situation, and we teach that those who do not know about Catholicism, who cannot be held responsible for their situation, are not “formal heretics,” altho they remain "material heretics."

Interesting. Other Roman Catholics on this very forum have told me that I am not a heretic --either formally or materially. Which is it?

I’m not trolling; I’m honestly seeking an answer that has not been answered - even when submitted to the “Ask an Apologist” section. Perhaps there is no consensus in the Roman Church on this topic? I am, as always, open to learning. Perhaps this needs a new thread.

 

[christus_vincit]

Interesting. Other Roman Catholics on this very forum have told me that I am not a heretic --either formally or materially. Which is it?

I’m not trolling; I’m honestly seeking an answer that has not been answered - even when submitted to the “Ask an Apologist” section. Perhaps there is no consensus in the Roman Church on this topic? I am, as always, open to learning. Perhaps this needs a new thread.

I think the previous poster made a fair and sincere attempt to delineate between “formal” and “material” heresy. The word “heretic” in any context obviously carries a stigma, and is generally looked upon as an uncharitable thing to call someone, even if they fit the “definition” of being a heretic. I think anyone calling anyone else a heretic on this forum would probably be grounds for banning. This is 2014, not 1520. We can talk about our differences without the archaic language that has so much ancient animosity attached to it.

 

[St_Francis]

Interesting. Other Roman Catholics on this very forum have told me that I am not a heretic --either formally or materially. Which is it?

I’m not trolling; I’m honestly seeking an answer that has not been answered - even when submitted to the “Ask an Apologist” section. Perhaps there is no consensus in the Roman Church on this topic? I am, as always, open to learning. Perhaps this needs a new thread.

Looking into this, I see that there are arguments for both views. There have been many times in Catholic history when there was a dispute about an issue; this is not uncommon. Generally after a while the issue will be decided one way or the other. Until that happens, one is allowed to hold either view; after it is decided, those [ETA: Catholics] who sincerely seek the truth will naturally bring their thinking into alignment with the decision.

Do you understand each side of the issue?

 

[MacQ]

Not trying to be a martyr at all.

I just wish your church was consistent. Am I to accept what your church said about folks like myself 50 years ago, or today?

Why would I want to engage such a church which changes based on whims.

Yes your church is much kinder and gentler then it was hundreds of years ago, this is to its credit. But was it wrong then? Why the change?

That’s why I find the title terribly patronizing.

Well, I’m very pleased that (being a human institution, thus erring at times) that the Church rights the ship when she sees the need. Not the faith itself, but some practices is what we’re talking about.
That the Church saw fit to reach out to other faiths in peace and love is one such correction. More consistent with our faith.
You haven’t said what you want us to call you.
An option is to just be happy in your Lutheranism and don’t worry about it.

 

[MacQ]

Yes, I agree with you 100% (i’d never be accused of being a good writer lol)

Too many times i’m seeing people come to CAF, enter a discussion and take offense. They then mention they are offended and expect apology instead of trying to find context and perspective. In the end, you being offended doesnt make me wrong.

Gotcha…thanks for the clarification.
A thousand ways to attack Catholics!
One wonders why they don’t see to those logs in their own eyes.

 

[MacQ]

Lol. Well. He is a “former Catholic” who apparently
reformed to Lutheran.
You know former Catholics? Can be worse than
a former smoker.

Aye…I always wonder, if they’ve ‘moved on’, why are they so unhappy?

 

[MacQ]

Why? Scripture is true regardless of who is interpreting it, there are of course errant interpretations. That’s why the church needs to testify to the truth of scripture. But the church’s doctrines are always normed by scripture, that’s sola Scriptura. If not, then the church is putting its doctrines over scripture. I don’t believe that’s consistent nor logical.

So your basic assumptions there are: scripture is true regardless of who is interpreting it, AND there are errant interpretations.
Doesn’t seem to square…seems “inconsistent”…

Yes, the catholic church does know it nbeeds to testify to the truthof scripture.
Liturgy of the Word is the first half of the Mass.
Ever read the document about sacred scripture from Vatican II?
What is inconsistent?

 

[jmr_1985]

Interesting. Other Roman Catholics on this very forum have told me that I am not a heretic --either formally or materially. Which is it?

I’m not trolling; I’m honestly seeking an answer that has not been answered - even when submitted to the “Ask an Apologist” section. Perhaps there is no consensus in the Roman Church on this topic? I am, as always, open to learning. Perhaps this needs a new thread.

In a spirit of ecumenism, the term “heretic” is no longer used to describe Protestants. Catholics are committed to reunification of the Church. However, if you have almost 1,000 post here, you know that Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is the fullness of faith, the Church that Jesus founded. We believe that the Church is more than a loose set of believers but physically present on this earth for 2,000 years under the leadership of the Supreme Pontiff. We believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and has guided her in every age and every council, including Trent. The Church has never rejected anything she said at Trent. She still instructs the faithful that the Lutherans and others are incorrect because it is her job to teach. Because you do not subscribe to all of what the Catholic Church teachs, we would say you are not total error but in error. All that to say, as a Lutheran, I would assume that you believe we Catholics are in error. Obviously, you know that people at CAF are some nice folks. Because you know our beliefs in the Church, I do not think you should be upset. God judges our souls, not man.

JMR

 

[steido01]

An option is to just be happy in your Lutheranism and don’t worry about it.

Aye, this is the best option. And the one to which I subscribe.

Lutherans believe we are the correct continuation of the unchanging teaching of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church; our doctrine does not change according to the whims of the social zeitgeist. We also happen to be Sola Scripturists in the purest sense. To return to the topic, this hardly makes us supporters of moral relativism. We, like Roman Catholics, simply think we are and have always been correct.

 

[marywarfield]

Interesting. Other Roman Catholics on this very forum have told me that I am not a heretic --either formally or materially. Which is it?

I’m not trolling; I’m honestly seeking an answer that has not been answered - even when submitted to the “Ask an Apologist” section. Perhaps there is no consensus in the Roman Church on this topic? I am, as always, open to learning. Perhaps this needs a new thread.

A very simple question: Do you reject certain dogmas
of the Catholic Church which every Catholic must
believe?
Yes.
Therefore you are a heretic.
Are you the instigator of the heresy?
No.
Therefore your heresy is material.

 

[St_Francis]

Why? Scripture is true regardless of who is interpreting it, there are of course errant interpretations. That’s why the church needs to testify to the truth of scripture. But the church’s doctrines are always normed by scripture, that’s sola Scriptura. If not, then the church is putting its doctrines over scripture. I don’t believe that’s consistent nor logical.

The way Catholics see it, Scripture is *true, *but it is not *entire. *Christ taught the Apostles many things, but they weren’t all written down. The teachings which were not written constitute Tradition.

What the Church teaches cannot contradict *either *Tradition or Scripture. Thus we have a standard against which to judge a proposed idea.

Scripture *alone *is insufficient for this purpose because Scripture does not contain *all *of revelation, that knowledge beyond natural knowledge which Christ revealed to us. We can know this by considering the purpose for which the various books of Scritpture were written, and we can see the practical effect by the fact that many who have studied Scripture very thoroughly can still come up with different interpretations. Luther himself interpreted Scripture differently than the Church had, and had to change and diminish Scripture in order to uphold his ideas.

 

[steido01]

A very simple question: Do you reject certain dogmas
of the Catholic Church which every Catholic must
believe?
Yes.
Therefore you are a heretic.
Are you the instigator of the heresy?
No.
Therefore your heresy is material.

Thank you, Mary. This was my understanding as well. Even if the term is not preferred or no longer “appropriate,” it is accurate. I should note: I take no offense at it.

 

[Zachary]

The way Catholics see it, Scripture is *true, *but it is not *entire. *Christ taught the Apostles many things, but they weren’t all written down. The teachings which were not written constitute Tradition.

.

It even says so IN SCRIPTURE! “He did many things in their presense which are not written here.” What’s the point of this if not to point to extra biblical sources? Tradition (and isn’t Scripture really just a collection of traditions, aka memories etc.) It all ties in nicely with St Peter and the Catholic church.

 

[marywarfield]

Thank you, Mary. This was my understanding as well. Even if the term is not preferred or no longer “appropriate,” it is accurate. I should note: I take no offense at it.

You are welcome you heretic. Now off with your head!

 

[steido01]

You are welcome you heretic. Now off with your head!

Ah, so glad to live in this century with you modern-day papists.