Is Sola Scriptura idolatry?

[SyCarl]

OK. That’s a wrap then, isn’t it? Because teaching from the Bible is no longer Sola Scriptura. Teaching from the Bible requires extra-biblical infallible authorities and magisteria.

Only by your definition of Sola Scriptura is teaching from the Bible not within Sola Scriptura. And stating you conclusion that it requires an infallible authority to do so does not prove that conclusion. Nor does it prove that the Catholic Church has that infallible authority. Why do you say that such a rquirement is involved? Could it be your interpreation of the passages put forward by the Church to show that authority? Or is it that you accept the word of the Church without any proof?

Over the centuries the Catholic Church has taught either from the Bible or from Tradition consistent with the Bible. What do you think the Mass is?

How do you account for the centuries of Christian history before the Bible was compiled?

What were folks to read then?
What were folks to hear then?

How do you account for the decades of Christian history before the New Testament was written?

Sola Scriptura says that, for those folks, the Old Testament was ‘sufficient.’

Again you are defining Sola Scriptura to suit your own purposes. Sola Scriptrura does not deny original oral transmission of the truth. What it asserts is that the Bible contains what is necessary for salvation, from that oral transmission.

 

[st_felicity]

Oh…and the Hebrews passage…

Isn’t that what happened to the Apostles at Pentecost? The Apostles were the foundation (I mean 1st leaders–Christ is the foundation) of the Church–and the Catholic Church can show it’s historical liniage tracing straight back to them.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

Latin may have been the international language but that does not mean that it was understood by the poor and illiterate who are the people who needed be taught.

Again, I have already explained this. Because Latin was the lingua franca, it was not only woven into Church life, it was woven into international commerce. Many poor folk had a passing facility in Latin; a level of proficiency which ‘got them by.’

However, they were not able to read. And if they could read, then again it was a passing facility which ‘got them by.’ It was not enough to allow them to examine, criticize, and synthesize text. Moreover, who among them had the leisure and wealth to hover over a Book all day? Not many.

One of the traps which Sola Scriptura sets for folks is that it imposes a post-Reformation, educated, affluent, leisure-class point of view onto pre-Reformation, uneducated, poor labourers.

SyCarl:

Am I mistaken in believing that Sacred Music was not sung in Latin?

I think you mean Sacred Music was sung in Latin, do you not? The ‘not’ was a typo?

SyCarl:

If so how could it teach those who did not know Latin.

Again passing familiarity and scholarly erudition are two different things. Also many of the roots were discernible. Also the context spoke volumes.

Look at this Biblical principle, for example: radix mallorum cupiditas est. Just comparing the roots to other English words will get folks a long way. When this is placed in the context of a play, then folks might find themselves further along in understanding what it means.

SyCarl:

As to sacred music, sacred art and sacred theatre, how would the poor and illiterate, as you assume they are, have time to view theatre or have access to the art that you are referring to?

Sacred music occurred in churches. Sacred art was located in churches. Sacred theatre occurred during feasts often held in the public squares.

SyCarl:

Are we to assume that these people had the means to go where such art was, or that the owners would have permitted them in?

The priests let them into the churches.

SyCarl:

You seem to assume that the people had the time and the means to do everything but be taught biblically.

You have not demonstrated this.

 

[SyCarl]

Again, I have already explained this. Because Latin was the lingua franca, it was not only woven into Church life, it was woven into international commerce. Many poor folk had a passing facility in Latin; a level of proficiency which ‘got them by.’

To use your own words you have not demonstarted this. But they would certainly know their own language. Why did the Church not teach them in this language instead of leaving them to scrounge what they could from Latin, and perhaps misunderstand their translation of the Latin? Why did the infallible teaching authority teach in a language that the people might misunderstand? Surely if the Gospel was so difficult that people needed a teacher to explain it to them, that teacher should not have added the difficulty of trying to make out the language?

However, they were not able to read. And if they could read, then again it was a passing facility which ‘got them by.’ It was not enough to allow them to examine, criticize, and synthesize text. Moreover, who among them had the leisure and wealth to hover over a Book all day? Not many.

One of the traps which Sola Scriptura sets for folks is that it imposes a post-Reformation, educated, affluent, leisure-class point of view onto pre-Reformation, uneducated, poor labourers.

If the people had time to attend Mass, they could be read to from the Bible at Mass in a language they could understand. Please note, even after the printing press, when each church could certainly have the Bible in the people’s vernacular tongue, Latin was still used.

I think you mean Sacred Music was sung in Latin, do you not? The ‘not’ was a typo?

Yes it was a typo.

Again passing familiarity and scholarly erudition are two different things. Also many of the roots were discernible. Also the context spoke volumes.

Look at this Biblical principle, for example: radix mallorum cupiditas est. Just comparing the roots to other English words will get folks a long way. When this is placed in the context of a play, then folks might find themselves further along in understanding what it means.

And again, why impose the extra burden on them of having to decipher the Latin to get what they supposed already needed an infallible teacher to explain?

Sacred music occurred in churches. Sacred art was located in churches. Sacred theatre occurred during feasts often held in the public squares.

The priests let them into the churches.

You have not demonstrated this.

I think that I have demonstated it more than you have demonstrated that they lacked the time as I am basing it on your assumption that they had the time to go to Mass and listen to music and oral teaching in a languarge they could not understand and had the time to go to religious theatre.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

Only by your definition of Sola Scriptura is teaching from the Bible not within Sola Scriptura.

Wrong. From the definition which you gave, teaching from the Bible immediately negates Sola Scriptura.

Why? Because to teach from the Bible means using words at variance with the words in the Bible. And that constitutes a tradition not Sola Scriptura.

SyCarl:

And stating you conclusion that it requires an infallible authority to do so does not prove that conclusion.

No. But my proof does.

SyCarl:

Nor does it prove that the Catholic Church has that infallible authority.

No. Red herring. That part of the discussion was not about the infallibility of the Magisterium found in the Catholic Church. We can prove that infallibility. But that would require a different thread.

SyCarl:

Why do you say that such a rquirement is involved?

What requirement? Can you specify?

SyCarl:

Could it be your interpreation of the passages put forward by the Church to show that authority?

I am not following you. Please specify what requirement you are talking about first and then I might be able to understand what you are saying here. OK?

SyCarl:

Or is it that you accept the word of the Church without any proof?

Faith cannot be unreasonable. Truth cannot contradict truth. You are grasping at straws and once again you are trying to put words in my mouth. Please do not put words in my mouth. It does not further the discussion.

SyCarl:

Again you are defining Sola Scriptura to suit your own purposes.

No. I have applied a line of reasoning to your definition.

I note that you do not address your replies to any of the central points I make but instead try to dismiss what I say by means of strawmen, false attributions, and other forms of non sequitur. One would think that, if you had something substantive with which to refute my claims, that you would post those – rather than this string of evasions.

SyCarl:

Sola Scriptrura does not deny original oral transmission of the truth.

How many times do you want me to say that I don’t have a problem with oral transmission of truth? I have said several times now that I do not find oral transmission of truth to be necessarily inconsistent with Sola Scriptura.



Only when oral transmission of truth takes the form of teaching from the Bible, do I find it to be inconsistent with Sola Scriptura. That is because teaching from the Bible is not the same as reading from the Bible. Teaching from the Bible is changing the words of the Bible in order to explain what the Bible actually says.

Those changed words then are an extra-biblical tradition. Sola Scriptura requires that those changed words which constitute teaching from the Bible have no infallible authority because, according to Sola Scriptura, infallible authority is in the Bible alone. So, if those changed words which constitute teaching from the Bible have no infallible authority, then what are they doing in your churches?

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t use Sola Scripture to marginalize the Catholic Church and then deviate from Sola Scriptura when it suits you. That is relativism.

Sola Scriptura negates the existence of any form of pastor! Sola Scriptura requires that Bibles be handed out and then folks be left to access ‘what is required for salvation’ for themselves.

SyCarl:

What it asserts is that the Bible contains what is necessary for salvation, from that oral transmission.

Provided that the Bible is being read, not taught.

 

[st_felicity]

SyCarl–you are aware that you fault me for providing scriptural evidence of infallable authority outside of scripture as “interpreting scripture” but it is also the only evidence you will accept. You create a situation where you can only confirm your POV because your POV is the only one with authority you will accept. Begs the question, No?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

To use your own words you have not demonstarted this.

Saying that I have not demonstrated this does not make it so.

I have gone to a great deal of trouble to produce lines of reasoning with quotes and links. You have not.

Neither have you addressed your replies to my lines of reasoning, choosing instead to attempt to dismiss them by means of rhetoric not reason.

If you wish to say that I have not demonstrated something, then you must demonstrate point by point why I have not demonstrated something. Just saying that I have not demonstrated something does not make it so. It is only empty rhetoric, grasping at straws.

SyCarl:

But they would certainly know their own language. Why did the Church not teach them in this language instead of leaving them to scrounge what they could from Latin, and perhaps misunderstand their translation of the Latin?

Because the lingua franca was Latin!

SyCarl:

Why did the infallible teaching authority teach in a language that the people might misunderstand?

Do folks not learn from Sacred Art? Sacred Music? Sacred Theatre? You are evading this. And because

Common folks had enough oral Latin to ‘get by’ but not enough to examine, criticize, and synthesize Scripture at leisure.

You are evading this too.

SyCarl:

Surely if the Gospel was so difficult that people needed a teacher to explain it to them, that teacher should not have added the difficulty of trying to make out the language?

You are evading the points I have made again. What is the problem here? Have you so little to refute my points with that you have to resort to evasion or misrepresentation?

Common folks had enough oral Latin to ‘get by’ but not enough to examine, criticize, and synthesize Scripture at leisure.

SyCarl:

If the people had time to attend Mass, they could be read to from the Bible at Mass in a language they could understand.

The lingua franca was Latin!

Common folks had enough oral Latin to ‘get by’ but not enough to examine, criticize, and synthesize Scripture at leisure.

SyCarl:

Please note, even after the printing press, when each church could certainly have the Bible in the people’s vernacular tongue, Latin was still used.

You are evading again. I have already explained that Latin as the lingua franca of Europe was used into the 18th C!

SyCarl:

And again, why impose the extra burden on them of having to decipher the Latin to get what they supposed already needed an infallible teacher to explain?

The lingua franca was Latin!

Common folks had enough oral Latin to ‘get by’ but not enough to examine, criticize, and synthesize Scripture at leisure.

SyCarl:

I think that I have demonstated it more than you have demonstrated that they lacked the time as I am basing it on your assumption that they had the time to go to Mass and listen to music and oral teaching in a languarge they could not understand and had the time to go to religious theatre.

If you have demonstrated it, then I have missed it. Please point me to your demonstrations. However I do not think I have missed anything you have said. I have actually quoted what you have said and responded to what you have said point by point. If I missed any of your demonstrations it is because you haven’t made any.

As for having the time to go to Mass, are you suggesting that they not go to Mass? During the Mass they would have all the Sacred Art and Sacred Music that they could want.

As for Sacred Theatre, you are evading again. This theatre was performed during feasts. These feasts were Christian events.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

From the same University as the previous quotes.
fordham.edu/halsall/mod/indexlibrorum.html

It is not the original document – unless you are suggesting that Trent took place at Fordham University?

SyCarl:

Error ridden according to whom?

According to the Church which Jesus established 1500 years before Sola Scriptura was a glint in Luther’s eye.

Moreover, truth cannot contradict truth. If you have numerous versions of the Bible and some of those versions contradict each other then it follows logically some of those have to be in error.

SyCarl:

Perhaps you could indicate how the Tyndale Bible and the Geneva Bible were error laden other than the view of the Catholic Church?

Sure I could, but that would require another thread. I think folks and myself have made more than enough points on this thread for you to respond to without bringing up off-topic red herrings.

SyCarl:

Or was it really an attempt to protect the power and control the Church had over the common folk from the truth?

Even Luther contradicted himself. What was that inspiration that Luther had about James all about?

 

[SyCarl]

You have not demonstated that the common people understood Latin. You stated it as a fact without any proof. English is the internatonal language today. Does that mean that if I were to go to a small village in Africa or China, for example, that most of the people there would understand English? Even if they did, would it not be if I were trying to teach them something to do so in their own language rather than in a second language with which they are not proficient?

People attended Mass, Scripture was read in Mass. It was not read to them in their own language though. That is elitist, teaching in a language only the educated and rich could understand well. If one cared for the poor and uneducated, one would have read to them in a language they understtod.

As for learning from Sacred Art, what can they learn unless they already know what they are looking for. From a multitude of pictures and statues of Mary and the saints, they could well conclude that they were divine.

To summarize my argument.

Scripture alone means that the Bible contains everything that is necessary for salvation and it is the final and only infallible rule of faith. It does not say that someone must read the Bible. It does not say that the Bible contains everything that can be known, only what is necessary. It does not deny authority to the Church, only that the teaching of the Church is subject to the Bible. It does not say that the contents of the Bible cannot be conveyed by oral teaching.

To teach someone about the Exodus, does not require that you read them the entire Book of Exodus. Telling them that God sent Moses to free the Israelites from Eygpt does not violate Sola Scrpitura.

Sola Scriptura does not ignore the poor and illiterate. The Church has the Bible. The people attended Church. The people could have been taught from the Bible in a language other than one they understood poorly. It was Protestants who conducted vernacular services and gave Bibles to the people who could not afford them.

If anything, it was the Catholic Church that was elitist in using Latin which was only well known by the literate and rich and was only poorly known by the poor and illiterate.

 

[st_felicity]

Am I invisible?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Am I invisible?

No. I am just short-sighted. Is that you, Felicity? Darn, I just argued Sola Scriptura with the pizza man. I guess he won’t be delivering here anymore.

Life’s hard, eh?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

You have not demonstated that the common people understood Latin. You stated it as a fact without any proof.

I assumed you knew what lingua franca meant. And as for my not offering proof: please go back and look at my posts. Many of them are liberally sprinkled with blue underlined text.

You are attempting to impose upon me a standard of proof which you have not imposed upon yourself.

Latin was the lingua franca in what used to be the Roman Empire. That meant that science, theology, and commerce were all woven with the threads of Latin. A commoner may have gargled in English, but he dickered with foreign merchants in Latin.

I have linked to a source before on this subject on CAF. I do not have the time right now to go on a rabbit chase for you, particularly in view of the fact that you have offered so little proof yourself. If you want to use your search window, you are free to do so.

In any case, you are arguing for argument’s sake. It is plain to see how many folks could ‘get by’ in Latin when they heard it every Sunday at Mass and when they heard it from foreign merchants in the market place. I first learned this in a university course on Medieval Drama.

SyCarl:

English is the internatonal language today. Does that mean that if I were to go to a small village in Africa or China, for example, that most of the people there would understand English?

Faulty analogy. You are once again imposing a 21C standard on a medieval way of life.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

Even if they did, would it not be if I were trying to teach them something to do so in their own language rather than in a second language with which they are not proficient?

The point that you are refusing to get, Mr Carl, is that Catholic Church is just that: a Catholic Church. There is unity in the Catholic Church in no small part because its communications have been in Latin. One language. One Church. Understand?

And the common folks could ‘get by’ in Latin. Undestand?

SyCarl:

People attended Mass, Scripture was read in Mass. It was not read to them in their own language though. That is elitist, teaching in a language only the educated and rich could understand well. If one cared for the poor and uneducated, one would have read to them in a language they understtod.

Hello? Mr Carl? They could ‘get by’ in Latin. How many more times do you want me to say this? They could get by in Latin. They could get by in Latin. If you sat in a church and heard the Mass every Sunday in Latin and if you heard Latin spoken by foreign merchants when you went to the market, then maybe you could get by in Latin too.

By the way, how did you do with radix mallorum cupiditas est? Do you have some sort of concept of what it might mean? Any guesses?

There is a difference between ‘getting by’ in Latin and having the fluency required for Sola Scriptura. By the way, did you read those links I gave you? One of them talks about the purpose of using the vernacular in the Reformation. It might surprise you to take a look at some of the great works of literature which were distributed to the poor in the vernacular. Really. Take a look.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

As for learning from Sacred Art, what can they learn unless they already know what they are looking for.

This is the intentional fallacy. Moreover what you are suggesting is that Sacred Art was incapable of telling stories. How much do you know about medieval Art? Do you know for instance anything about the triptych? You are really grasping at straws here.

SyCarl:

From a multitude of pictures and statues of Mary and the saints, they could well conclude that they were divine.

Um, I guess they did.

SyCarl:

To summarize my argument. Scripture alone means that the Bible contains everything that is necessary for salvation and it is the final and only infallible rule of faith.

This I understand. I have heard it in that form in Reformer circles.

SyCarl:

It does not say that someone must read the Bible.

No. But then that begs the question of what must be done with the Bible in order to access what is “necessary for salvation.”

Are you suggesting that what is “necessary for salvation” can be accessed in way other than reading it or by listening to someone else read it?

Please answer this question.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

It does not say that the Bible contains everything that can be known, only what is necessary.

Who said that it contains everything that can be known? Why the red herring?

SyCarl:

It does not deny authority to the Church, only that the teaching of the Church is subject to the Bible.

Making the teaching of the Church subject to the Bible is denying authority to the Church.

SyCarl:

It does not say that the contents of the Bible cannot be conveyed by oral teaching.

Well, if it truly does not say this then it is self-contradictory. Are you sure you want to stick with this self-contradictoary definition? If so, then I think it is you who need to start offering some proof.

SyCarl:

To teach someone about the Exodus, does not require that you read them the entire Book of Exodus.

Indeed it does not. You are right in this regard. But Sola Scriptura requires that teaching someone about Exodus is extra-biblical and therefore not infallibly authoritative.

You can’t have it both ways, Mr Carl. If you are going to allow teaching to be infallibly authoritative then you are going to have to prove from where each pastor got his infallible authority.

Also you are going to have to reconcile the multitide of contradictory teachings among the pastors with the axiom: truth cannot contradict truth.

SyCarl:

Telling them that God sent Moses to free the Israelites from Eygpt does not violate Sola Scrpitura.

Like, I said, Mr Carl, give me the proof.

SyCarl:

Sola Scriptura does not ignore the poor and illiterate.

Saying so doesn’t make it so. Refute my argument point by point.

SyCarl:

The Church has the Bible. The people attended Church. The people could have been taught from the Bible in a language other than one they understood poorly.

You say they understood it poorly. Saying so doesn’t make it so. Where is your proof?

SyCarl:

It was Protestants who conducted vernacular services and gave Bibles to the people who could not afford them.

And made inaccurate translations of Bibles. And forced people to convert to the new religion on pain of death and on pain of seizure of their property.

SyCarl:

If anything, it was the Catholic Church that was elitist in using Latin which was only well known by the literate and rich and was only poorly known by the poor and illiterate.

Do you believe that, if you say this a thousand times without proving it, that it will magically transform into truth? You have not used a line of reasoning to prove this point. I have used a line of reasoning to prove my point. You have not addressed my line of reasoning point by point. You have merely dismissed it.

end of post

 

[Benadam]

I was only able to read about half of this thread so forgive me if the ideas I present have already been posted.

Words are transitory symbols in relation to the concepts that are attached to them. Apart from those concepts that express divine revelation the words of Sacred Scripture are just symbols, earthly things.

If our intellect is unable to apprehend the spiritual realities defined or described by the words then the words that have been accepted as sacred tend to be perceived as having an autonomous sacredness. I think this is why some people will say things like " where is the word ‘purgatory’ in the bible? To them perhaps a reality revealed by God can only exist if an earthly symbol has been attached to it. This seems to me the slippery slope towards an idolatrous use of Holy Scriptures inherent in Sola Scriptura. I don’t believe the sin of idolatry is committed in this way but I believe that an earthly thing ( the words apart from authentic meaning) is put before God in that it is perceived as possessing the power of God.

An objection I have that springs from this line of thought is in regards to what authority is. I would say that in order for authority to exist it must be able to be exercised.

Authority placed into something that is unable to distinguish and decide what is right or wrong, correct or incorrect, good or bad, effectively makes authority nonexistent and can lead to a perception that the divine exists within earthly realities that are as sightless and speechless as the idols spoken against in the OT.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Benadam:

I was only able to read about half of this thread so forgive me if the ideas I present have already been posted.

Gosh, if I remember correctly – and I don’t – many of the posts in this thread were simply repeated several times over.

Benadam:

Authority placed into something that is unable to distinguish and decide what is right or wrong, correct or incorrect, good or bad, effectively makes authority nonexistent and can lead to a perception that the divine exists within earthly realities that are as sightless and speechless as the idols spoken against in the OT.

Good point. God gave dominion to what? Things? Or persons? In SS we see the thing have dominion over man. That is not the natural order of things. It defies Creation.

 

[st_felicity]

I was only able to read about half of this thread so forgive me if the ideas I present have already been posted.

Words are transitory symbols in relation to the concepts that are attached to them. Apart from those concepts that express divine revelation the words of Sacred Scripture are just symbols, earthly things.

If our intellect is unable to apprehend the spiritual realities defined or described by the words then the words that have been accepted as sacred tend to be perceived as having an autonomous sacredness. I think this is why some people will say things like " where is the word ‘purgatory’ in the bible? To them perhaps a reality revealed by God can only exist if an earthly symbol has been attached to it. This seems to me the slippery slope towards an idolatrous use of Holy Scriptures inherent in Sola Scriptura. I don’t believe the sin of idolatry is committed in this way but I believe that an earthly thing ( the words apart from authentic meaning) is put before God in that it is perceived as possessing the power of God.

An objection I have that springs from this line of thought is in regards to what authority is. I would say that in order for authority to exist it must be able to be exercised.

Authority placed into something that is unable to distinguish and decide what is right or wrong, correct or incorrect, good or bad, effectively makes authority nonexistent and can lead to a perception that the divine exists within earthly realities that are as sightless and speechless as the idols spoken against in the OT.

This is exactly the line of thinking that I was unable to put into words–I agree totally. You have found the “earthly” and “natural” symbols that best convey that “supernatural reality” of intention and thought. Thanks!:clapping:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Is Sola Scriptura idolatry?

 

[Benadam]

Yes. If it is a testemony that is put before those who it testifies too it is put before God. " Those who here you here me" " As the Father has sent me, I send you" Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?"