“[A] hermeneutical practice”? Which says what? That the Bible is the sole and final authority for all that Christians believe and practice…right? So even as 'a hermeneutical practice" it contradicts itself because the Bible nowhere lays claim to any such authority…
That’s completely untrue Bohm. We always hear about the Bereans in the New Testament who searched the scriptures to insure that what they were hearing was true, and this is exactly the same. N-Cs often tell us that this is what we Catholics need to do, so why am I wrong to ask for specific scriptural proofs? It seems we Catholics are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
I’m all in favor of learning about other’s beliefs, and like I said, if SS is a scriptural teaching then it has to have it’s foundation within the Bible, or it’s not valid teaching by failing its own test. If this makes you so mad, then I’m sorry, but I can’t help it because I don’t believe it and the Catholic Church doesn’t teach it.
Then, please provide them. It’s that simple, Bohm. I stated the reasons that your texts so far don’t work. If that upsets you, then follow the logic out and see where it leads. I think we all encounter people who tells us the Bible says certain things in certain places, but when I go back and look it all up, I go
! “That’s not what it says…”Well that may happen with some people, but not with yours truly. There are very few cases where a single verse or passage makes the entire case for any Biblical teaching. With regard to Purgatory, you can see what I mean in the following article on it from my blog.
Here again, you are wrong (though this departs from the topic, so if you want to get into this, by all means quote and link the following article from my blog and we’ll see where it goes. The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. and be aware that I provide documentation that 3 of the Pillars of Reformation believed and preached this.
Thank you for your sincere help Bohm. I hope so too.
I think he’s drawing the conclusion that since all doctrine and dogma are made sure they do not contradict or violate Sacred Scripture, that it holds authority over who is making doctrine or authoritative claims. IF this the conclusion, then it is nothing more than a straw man. Since the Magisterium never makes an authoritative claim that conflicts with Sacred Scripture, it does not mean that Sacred Scripture has authority over their claims. It is a simple position that what is being proclaimed, does not contradict what was taught in the early Church. This is a critical practice to preserve the Church from error, as she is spotless. This practice is not only employed with Sacred Scripture, but with all pasted councils that made infallible declarations.
Unfortunately, this is not the definition held by all n-Cs. This one may be workable for some. However, it does infer that Sacred Tradition can conflict with Sacred Scripture does it not, to which I would have to respond that authentic Sacred Tradition has not, does not, and can not do so. Such conflicting traditions (note, small “t”) would actually be more correctly termed apocryphal, would they not? And said traditions would already have been rejected by the Church.
Don’t misunderstand me Dave. I am not insisting any such thing. This is what a great many n-Cs here on CAF and in real life have repeatedly told me and my Catholic brethren.
The negation of SS is implicitly taught in the NT. The below verse clearly suggests that the ‘scriptures’ are only the tip of the iceberg and the full revelation of knowledge is yet to come.… The Trinity is very implicitly taught in the scriptures, whereas there is not even an implicit inference to support Sola Scriptura. It’s just not there my friend.
Did you point out to him that his very statement contradicts the doctrine of SS because if SS is true, then it has to have it’s basis in the Bible. If, as he told you, it’s not there then…
Unfortunately, this is not the definition held by all n-Cs. This one may be workable for some. However, it does infer that Sacred Tradition can conflict with Sacred Scripture does it not, to which I would have to respond that authentic Sacred Tradition has not, does not, and can not do so. Such conflicting traditions (note, small “t”) would actually be more correctly termed apocryphal, would they not? And said traditions would already have been rejected by the Church. :shrugon’t misunderstand me Dave. I am not insisting any such thing. This is what a great many n-Cs here on CAF and in real life have repeatedly told me and my Catholic brethren.
Yes, there’s no doubt a great deal of confusion about it among Protestants as well. Since it’s a slogan coming from the Reformation, what I’ve given you is roughly the Reformation definition of the concept. People can and do shape it in a myriad of ways.
Church Militant;8545700:
I think the key difference is in the definition of that which specifically constitutes the Tradition (big-T) or magisterium of the Church, not in whether such a concept does or does not exist.
Perhaps then a working definition.
Not an outright rejection of dogmas and teachers, in fact an implicit acceptance of their necessity. Also a scripture reference.
bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php
Because they were forgeries meant to deceive people into believing that Christ did not die for everyone, but only for the “elect” who had the “special” knowledge.
I have yet to see any supporting scripture for the idea that church tradition/oral teachings should take precedent over the written scripture, either.Okay, Dave.
Please show us where exactly this idea is found in the Bible?
I have yet to see any such supporting scripture.
Note: The Catholic Church dos not teach tithing.
(Emphasis mine) Note that profitable means useful, but in no way even implies that it is the sole or ultimate authority,
Since you asked.
Yet that is not a Catholic teaching.
For context, I suggest you carefully read Paragraphs 74-100 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It’s not really very long at all, and concisely explains what I am driving at as to what the Catholic faith actually does teach about all this.
And this something that Catholics often find odd as well because we do have those checks and balances in place, and in practice, many n-Cs do indeed tell us to essentially, “just pick up a Bible and go”, as if that solves everything.
Well, do you believe that good works are sufficient for salvation? It doesn’t say “every good faith” or “every good grace” now does it?
What else do you need besides the book the Catholic Church provided to the world as canon? Well if you want a biblical response, John 6 is one instance that explains what we need beyond words. You want a historical response; the Early Christians followed what was called the Catholic Church, attended Mass and partook in the Eucharist from a Presbyter who was ordained by a Bishop who had apostolic succession back to Christ (earliest reference, look to St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans in Chapter 8. 107 AD). The modern Church doesn’t have to say a thing; the Early Church Fathers said it all. As a logician, who am I going to listen to? The ones who actually learned from the Apostles themselves or a revolutionary movement who started 1500 years after Pentecost? Reason points to the former, who professed to be Catholics.