Being a western Christian, the answer seems obvious; the Bishop of Rome, and the Magisterium.
Jon
- Status
Jon
B
benjohnson
Guest
Nicea, good to talk with you.
It is amusing that us Sola Scriptura proponents have to use other sources than Scripture to base our argument.
The closest verse is 2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Does Catholic Church has any good way of preventing private interpretation on the church’s teaching, as the same technique would help my interpretation of the bible. Prayer is about the only comfort I can find.
I’m quite sure you know there’s no direct verse that says scripture is the only infallible source. That’s half the fun!
It is amusing that us Sola Scriptura proponents have to use other sources than Scripture to base our argument.
The closest verse is 2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
I wish had you ability to separate the Church with it’s actions. I can at a certain level, and understand what you mean.
I don’t teach that at all! I don’t think the Catholic Chruch is very fallible at all - Please keep in mind that as a good Lutheran, I agree with almost all Catholic practice and doctrine. Remember we agree on most authority. It’s just that every 1500 years of so, we stand up and say - “Hey! That’s not in the Bible!” and even then, only on cases of doctrine that goes counters to Scripture.
I think I overstepped - I should have said that Catholics accept more than scripture as infallible. But please keep in mind that Lutherans only apply Sola Scripture for doctrine.
It’s has worked well for us - remember because of it, we haven’t introduced too many novelties. There are Lutheran Synods who are going wayward precisely because they’re not applying SS and are listening to themselves rather than God. I can’t speak for other Protestant sects, but my impression is that some are more Solo Scriptura.
I mean Sola Ecclesia, as from the final word in this portion of the CCC “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form [Scripture] or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone.”
Does Catholic Church has any good way of preventing private interpretation on the church’s teaching, as the same technique would help my interpretation of the bible. Prayer is about the only comfort I can find.
Thank you! God continue to Bless you.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes. They were Catholic. Not only Roman Catholic.
If someone came to your town and asked you, “Where’s the local Catholic church, friend?” would you point him to your church?
P
PRmerger
Guest
And if this is your definition of Sola Scriptura, then no one would disagree with it.
It’s just not the traditional way that SS has been promulgated.
It’s only recently, due to arguments proffered by Catholics that refute the traditional understanding of SS, that this definition has changed.
I have now, of late, heard that SS is a “hermeneutic principle”, and not a doctrine, and thus is not answerable to Scripture.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Except, you do have to wonder, Jon, that as your church claims to be fallible, where she is wrong?
<spoken with some delicacy because it is, indeed, a delicate thing to say that your mama may be wrong>
B
benjohnson
Guest
My depiction of SS is not my own, it’s from 500 year old Lutheran teaching.
I’ll be blunt - our more distant Protestant friends ran away with SS and made it into something that us Lutheran I don’t recognize. I have to admit that I was sort of confused on why Catholics seemed to object so seriously with SS. I know it’s different, but it didn’t seem crazy enough to make books about it. Now of course, I see what you think SS is based off of popular (though incorrect) understanding, and I understand your reaction.
Sadly, our distant Protestant friends began using their SS to prod Catholics, and of course that’s what you’re fighting.
S
Stilldreamn
Guest
It’s difficult to criticize the LC-MS without also criticizing your infallible Church since we share so much doctrine and practice.
Except, you do have to wonder, Jon, that as your church claims to be fallible, where she is wrong?
<spoken with some delicacy because it is, indeed, a delicate thing to say that your mama may be wrong>
BUT I think we have a problem that is similar to what the RCC had 500 years ago - our doctrine is pure, but our practices are not. Acknowledging this has brought me closer to the Catholic Church as I understand how the false teachers in any organization can impact so many people and indeed, how the visible Church is seen. I recall that Luther was utterly faithful and loyal until he was scandalized by the unchecked abuses. Where would he go now, with even some Lutheran churches nodding approval to homosexual unions and abortion? Perhaps if he could have been like Methusalah and lived 500 years, he would be a Catholic revert, and bring us all back with him.
J
JustaServant
Guest
It all comes down to who a Christian can trust to authoritively interpret Scripture.
When I was Baptist I would sit in Sunday School classes and hear questions like “what does this verse mean to you?” Well, it might not pertain to me at all, so why put the Christian into an authoratative position they are unprepared for?
People like being the power of being their own pope and to take that authority and defer it to a church, any church, takes away that power.
P
PRmerger
Guest
If this is how you see the CC of 500 years ago, then how is it that you are Lutheran and not Catholic? Why would you countenance leaving a Church with pure doctrine?
Would you leave your Lutheran church now, given that you see pure doctrine but poor practice?
Why separate when it’s only the orthopraxy and not the orthodoxy that’s corrupted?
(NB: this question is not really about why you’re Lutheran. My question is whether you think it is warranted to start a church when the doctrine is pure but practice is corrupt)
S
Stilldreamn
Guest
No. I think it’s very easy for us here, in 2012 to look back 500 years and say Fr. Luther! Please be patient and go through your chain of command!
Undoubtedly, in Luther’s times it looked far more grim and even life-threatening to challenge abusive practices. He was not the first reformer - just one of the first to survive the attempt. Unfortunately, the Church was then splintered due to what our current Synod President would call a “blizzard of sin” on both sides.
C
Contarini
Guest
Indeed. I’m not interested in assigning blame.
However, the chain of command isn’t really the issue. The issue is Luther’s confidence that his personal theological notions were the Word of God. Catholics are quite right to point out that this not only divided him from Rome but made it impossible, from the beginning, for Protestants to unite with each other.
Wycliffe survived as well. The key to surviving was to get civil rulers to back you. (For that matter, Peter Waldo survived–but then he does seem to have submitted to the Church in later years.)
And, of course, you’re assuming that “reformers” have to be heterodox. There were plenty of reformers who did not attack church doctrine.
Once again: Luther was not in trouble for challenging abusive practices. He was in trouble for challenging doctrines. And that’s what he, himself, thought was the heart of the issue.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
But many would argue that what you guys have done is essentially to say, “SS stops working with the formation of the confessions–now we’re going to pretend that our confessions are infallible even though we don’t formally claim that they are.”
So it’s not that SS works, but that you’ve just turned it off.
Sola Scriptura’s sole function, if it is understood in a way incompatible with Catholic doctrine, is to allow for “novelties”–new ways of understanding Scripture that don’t fit accepted theological traditions.
Now I want to be careful with the whole “Lutherans are less consistent Protestants” argument. In some areas it is used entirely inappropriately. For instance, I’ve met Baptists who think that Lutherans (and Reformed, for that matter) are inconsistent in their adherence to sola fide because they believe in infant baptism, not understanding that the Lutheran (and, with differences, the Reformed) understanding of sola fide is not the same as the Baptist one and thus doesn’t have the consequences the Baptists imagine.
The reason I’m willing to say this with regard to SS is that in the 1520s you find Luther and other Reformers saying some pretty radical things about SS. Then, as the Radical Reformation explodes and the Luther/Zwingli controversy develops, and as Protestants have to start coming up with doctrinal statements to demonstrate their orthodoxy (Augsburg 1530 being the obvious example), you see a steady backing away from a radical SS stance, and a renewed appreciation among the Reformers for the Church Fathers and the value of tradition.
In other words, on this particular issue (not necessarily on others), it seems to me that radical Protestants are being faithful to the radical Luther of the 1520s, and that later Luther and still more later confessional Lutherans put barriers around Sola Scriptura because it was having effects they didn’t like.
Edwin
P
pablope
Guest
Hi, Edwin…I would say
Thank your for your insights.You should write a book…I really mean it.
Anyway, can you expound more on this:and that later Luther and still more later confessional Lutherans put barriers around Sola Scriptura because it was having effects they didn’t like.
What were those effects?
P
pablope
Guest
There was also Catherine of Sienna…who did not see a need to split the Church.
P
pablope
Guest
You should read up on a reformer prior to Luther…Catherine of Sienna. She did go through the chain of command…and saw through her reforms…and did not cause a split in the Church.
B
benjohnson
Guest
The main problem with SS is that of “Personal Interpretation.”
But Catholics have a similar (to be fair, a less severe) problem as well - for example with SSPX members giving their “Personal Interpretation” of the teachings of the magisterium.
In my opinion, the only really answer is that both Catholics and Lutherans need to bind their consciousness to God. As with all ‘ideal’ solutions, this is a very difficult task for all of us and hard to measure.
S
Stilldreamn
Guest
Oh yes I know! I was thinking of her too as I wrote that. Perhaps Luther also considered her example. I wonder if it was easier for her to submit because she was female? If so, I thank God my rebelliousness is tempered by my gender.
B
benjohnson
Guest
I’ve contemplated this - but I don’t agree.
The root of stable SS, is that Lutherans don’t deny tradition at all. So unless tradition is contraindicated by the Bible (it almost never does) - then adding novelties would be temping disaster (if not God) for no good reason.
There’s nothing in Luther settled writings that demands novelties. That said, we are open to the Holy Sprit - for example, I would say that the Pope’s inspired insistence of Mary’s Assumption merits serious consideration.
I can see your point about SS being more radical in it’s early days, but to be fair, I’ll defer to Lather’s more calm and reasoned writing done at a later time when he wasn’t in fear of his life and soul.
B
benjohnson
Guest
If I may borrow some words, only after “a long train of abuses and usurpations.”
In my opinion those past abuses are horrid enough to drive people from God and Church, and history showed us that indeed they were. I would say we need to be hyper-vigelent on church abuses, for I imagine that one of the greater sins would be driving someone away from God.
Its a really good question. I read in the past - by a Lutheran - that if one is truly a confessional Lutheran, one must wake each morning with this question in mind; is there truly a good reason to remain in separation. If one is not willing to daily and honestly ask that question. then one has become comfortable in division, and that was not / is not the goal of the Reformation.
Except, you do have to wonder, Jon, that as your church claims to be fallible, where she is wrong?
<spoken with some delicacy because it is, indeed, a delicate thing to say that your mama may be wrong>
As to where we may be wrong, I have come to the consideration of, where do we disagree with something that both Orthodoxy and Rome agree. As examples, I believe Lutheran ought to be very cautious in any condemnation of invocation of the Blessed Virgin, and,
we should/ must be willing to take steps in any way possible to return to apostolic succession.
This is a personal take, and other Lutherans may disagree.
Jon
- Status