John Martignoni's new tract on Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter Church_Militant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
zz912 said:
There are some that adhere to Solo Scripture (Scripture Only), but even for Sola Scriptura, the argument still holds true. Because there MUST be at least one thing that holds the exact same level of authority as Scripture.

You cannot confer authority you do not possess. And something/someone has conferred upon the 66/73 books of the Bible the authority of Scripture. Someone/something has declared that Scripture is the the word of God. This something/someone must also possess the authority as the word of God.
Click to expand...
(Formerly truthstalker)

The opening argument is directed to Solo, I will grant you.

But regarding Sola Scriptura, sorry, but I must disagree.

It’s not a conferring of authority. Perhaps I am wrong here, but I don’t think the Catholic Church states that God’s Word is authoritative only because the Church has said it is. It is a recognition of authority. I recognize who is president, even though I personally did not make him president. I can recognize who a judge is in a different state, even though I do not live there. My recognition of authority does not mean that I am the one who grants that authority. God’s authority is intrinsic to God and not contingent on anyone or thing outside of God. A pastor can tell me that “this is the Bible, this is God’s Word” and that he submits to it, not that it submits to him, and tell me to line my life up with it. In this case he points to authority without having the same level of authority. Likewise a denomination or a confession can point to a higher authority. You see this in the Declaration of Independence, where God is referred to as a higher authority. That does not mean those who wrote it made God God. They recognized reality.
 
Tomyris said:
(Formerly truthstalker)

The opening argument is directed to Solo, I will grant you.

But regarding Sola Scriptura, sorry, but I must disagree.

It’s not a conferring of authority. Perhaps I am wrong here, but I don’t think the Catholic Church states that God’s Word is authoritative only because the Church has said it is. It is a recognition of authority. I recognize who is president, even though I personally did not make him president. I can recognize who a judge is in a different state, even though I do not live there. My recognition of authority does not mean that I am the one who grants that authority. God’s authority is intrinsic to God and not contingent on anyone or thing outside of God. A pastor can tell me that “this is the Bible, this is God’s Word” and that he submits to it, not that it submits to him, and tell me to line my life up with it. In this case he points to authority without having the same level of authority. Likewise a denomination or a confession can point to a higher authority. You see this in the Declaration of Independence, where God is referred to as a higher authority. That does not mean those who wrote it made God God. They recognized reality.
Click to expand...
Scripture is a reference document, useful for teaching and liturgy. It has no authority on its own because a book can not exercise authority. It can not interpret itself and it can not enforce what it says. The Catholic Church exercises the authority it was given by Jesus to teach and administer the sacraments. It wrote and compile the bible under divine inspiration for teaching and literature and everything in the bible is true and consistent with Catholic tradition. Imagine arguing with Melville on what Moby Dick was about. That’s the same thing that happens when people attempt to say that the Church is wrong in its interpretation of scripture.
 
JonNC said:
Thanks, Michael.
I think my continuing in this thread is deflecting from your intentions, and that of Mr. Martignoni. So, I’ll back out and let you guys discuss the others.

Jon
Click to expand...
Probably I’m in the same position, so I will withdraw.

I am curious as to what a SolO type will do with the OP.🙂
 
Tomyris said:
Probably I’m in the same position, so I will withdraw.

I am curious as to what a SolO type will do with the OP.🙂
Click to expand...
Not so well, ISTM. sola scriptura has enough thin spots, depending on how a communion practices it. Without the Schism, I see no need for either.

Jon
 
Tomyris said:
(Formerly truthstalker)

The opening argument is directed to Solo, I will grant you.

But regarding Sola Scriptura, sorry, but I must disagree.

It’s not a conferring of authority. Perhaps I am wrong here, but I don’t think the Catholic Church states that God’s Word is authoritative only because the Church has said it is. It is a recognition of authority. I recognize who is president, even though I personally did not make him president. I can recognize who a judge is in a different state, even though I do not live there. My recognition of authority does not mean that I am the one who grants that authority. God’s authority is intrinsic to God and not contingent on anyone or thing outside of God. A pastor can tell me that “this is the Bible, this is God’s Word” and that he submits to it, not that it submits to him, and tell me to line my life up with it. In this case he points to authority without having the same level of authority. Likewise a denomination or a confession can point to a higher authority. You see this in the Declaration of Independence, where God is referred to as a higher authority. That does not mean those who wrote it made God God. They recognized reality.
Click to expand...
Your examples actually make my point. The President is granted his authority because it is given to him by the people through the Constitution. The Constitution has this authority because the people have that authority originally. You can recognize his authority because others testify that he received it licitly, but someone HAS conferred that authority upon him. Same with a judge in another state. The county/state has conferred that authority upon him. And the same is true of the Declaration of Independence. The people who wrote and signed that were invested with authority to make the Declaration.

Now let’s look to Scripture. WHO declared that the 73 books in the Bible are Scripture? The Holy Spirit, but through WHO? WHO was invested with the authority to make this declaration to all Christians?
 
zz912 said:
This is irrelevant to the topic. You must be confused about the difference between tradition and Sacred Tradition. The names of Mary’s parents is part of tradition, and is not related to the economy of salvation.

The people at St. Anne de Baupre might take umbrage at that.

Who were these two different communities? Some communities of Jews viewed only the Torah as Scripture. Others viewed the Septuagint as Scripture (including Jesus, as He quoted from the Septuagint.)

The Hebrew community that developed what we call the Old Testament
The community that followed Jesus and collected their remembrances of him.

And who is the larger community? How did they test these observations? What standards did they use?

The larger community is the heavily Gentile influenced group called Christian

Who declared this to be true? Could you link to the prior “larger community” declaration where they declare the Bible as a reliable source? And which Bible, the one with 73 books, or Martin Luther’s 66-book edited version?

Several Councils of the Church, Trent not the least of which
I think there is value in any Bible, but I prefer the more complete version myself.
Could you bring some substantiation for this claim?
Click to expand...
 
zz912 said:
Who declared this to be true? Could you link to the prior “larger community” declaration where they declare the Bible as a reliable source? And which Bible, the one with 73 books, or Martin Luther’s 66-book edited version?
Click to expand...
Just for clarity, Martin Luther’s translation had 74 books.

Jon
 
paul_c said:
Well, we can agree that the basis of the doctrine of salvation is revealed in scripture. The problem is of course that scripture is not clear enough on its own to reveal all doctrines in the same way to every reader. For that you require an interpretative authority. I think you would probably agree on that as well.

As for the early councils, it is the Catholic viewpoint that the council’s actions are only valid when approved by the Pope. Don’t be deceived by the different leadership styles of the various popes. At the Council of Jerusalem, Peter claimed jurisiction saying " [BIBLEDRB]acts 15:7[/BIBLEDRB]. other Popes were content to let the councils play out with gentle behind the scenes direction through the legates. But it is the 4th council and its run up that clearly shows that the primacy of the Popes in the early councils. This particular council was called to address the monophysite heresy: that Jesus had only a divine but not a human nature. As this article shows, there was a council initially held in Ephesus in 449 that ratified this heresy. Pope Leo voided the council and called another, held in Chalcedon, where Leo’s view of the two natures of Christ was announced and Dioscurus,the archbishop of Alexandria was excommunicated. newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm

This council directly contradicts your view that the Pope didn’t have worldwide authority in the early church.
Click to expand...
You must also note, if you cite Acts, that Peter withdrew his support of Gentile converts to Christianity and was roundly rebuffed by Paul, who carried the day at the Jerusalem council.
 
RevDon said:
You must also note, if you cite Acts, that Peter withdrew his support of Gentile converts to Christianity and was roundly rebuffed by Paul, who carried the day at the Jerusalem council.
Click to expand...
First of all, Paul did not carry the day at the council of Jerusalem. He as in no position to do so at the time. You are speaking of a later event as remembered by Paul in Galatians… that has nothing to do with papal authority adn we only hear one side of the story
 
RevDon said:
Originally Posted by zz912
  1. This is irrelevant to the topic. You must be confused about the difference between tradition and Sacred Tradition. The names of Mary’s parents is part of tradition, and is not related to the economy of salvation.
The people at St. Anne de Baupre might take umbrage at that.
  1. Who were these two different communities? Some communities of Jews viewed only the Torah as Scripture. Others viewed the Septuagint as Scripture (including Jesus, as He quoted from the Septuagint.)
The Hebrew community that developed what we call the Old Testament
The community that followed Jesus and collected their remembrances of him.
  1. And who is the larger community? How did they test these observations? What standards did they use?
The larger community is the heavily Gentile influenced group called Christian
  1. Who declared this to be true? Could you link to the prior “larger community” declaration where they declare the Bible as a reliable source? And which Bible, the one with 73 books, or Martin Luther’s 66-book edited version?
Several Councils of the Church, Trent not the least of which
I think there is value in any Bible, but I prefer the more complete version myself.
  1. Could you bring some substantiation for this claim?
Click to expand...
  1. Why would they take umbrage at my statement?
  2. Which Hebrew community? The Essenes, the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Jews of the Dispersion? And which OT? Only the 5 books of the Torah? Or the 46 books of the Septuagint?
  3. Could you link to the declarations these early Christians made concerning which books were Sacred Scripture?
  4. So we agree that the Catholic Church has authority to declare what is, and what is not Sacred Scripture, and as such, has authority, at least in some respects, equal to Scripture.
 
paul_c said:
First of all, Paul did not carry the day at the council of Jerusalem. He as in no position to do so at the time. You are speaking of a later event as remembered by Paul in Galatians… that has nothing to do with papal authority adn we only hear one side of the story
Click to expand...
So…the rest of the story, Paul’s testimony, is irrevant?
 
zz912 said:
  1. Why would they take umbrage at my statement?
  2. Which Hebrew community? The Essenes, the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Jews of the Dispersion? And which OT? Only the 5 books of the Torah? Or the 46 books of the Septuagint?
  3. Could you link to the declarations these early Christians made concerning which books were Sacred Scripture?
  4. So we agree that the Catholic Church has authority to declare what is, and what is not Sacred Scripture, and as such, has authority, at least in some respects, equal to Scripture.
Click to expand...
  1. I’m sure they take their patroness quite seriously.
  2. The community that produced the canon of “Hebrew” scriptures
  3. I’m thinking of the various communities who received and preserved what we call the New Testament.
  4. Yes, I agree with this, except that I would say that the Bible belongs to all Christians insofar as they cherish its content and attempt to use it as a guide for living. I do not believe that the Bible can interpret or apply itself. I do not believe that it should be interpreted outside of community and exclusive of tradition. Nor do I believe that what we use now as sacred text is identical in every way with the first manuscripts of those texts. I do hold the authority of the Church over the texts.
An extremely interesting resource is Karen Armstrong’s* The Bible*, which chronicles the way scripture has been interpreted and applied over the centuries.
 
RevDon said:
  1. I’m sure they take their patroness quite seriously.
  2. The community that produced the canon of “Hebrew” scriptures
  3. I’m thinking of the various communities who received and preserved what we call the New Testament.
  4. Yes, I agree with this, except that I would say that the Bible belongs to all Christians insofar as they cherish its content and attempt to use it as a guide for living. I do not believe that the Bible can interpret or apply itself. I do not believe that it should be interpreted outside of community and exclusive of tradition. Nor do I believe that what we use now as sacred text is identical in every way with the first manuscripts of those texts. I do hold the authority of the Church over the texts.
An extremely interesting resource is Karen Armstrong’s* The Bible*, which chronicles the way scripture has been interpreted and applied over the centuries.
Click to expand...
  1. Of course they take their patroness seriously. That has nothing to do with my statement. If we were to find out that Mary’s mother’s name was actually Sarah, that wouldn’t change the fact that she lived, and she is a saint. It is not part of Sacred Tradition. It is tradition. I’m sure they would explain this to you as well.
  2. Why do you refuse to answer my question? Are you unsure and do not know? Or are you intentionally refusing to answer?
  3. There was one community, the Catholic Church. There were no others.
  4. Who told you it was a guide for living? It was brought together to normalize the worship service, the mass. That is Scripture’s first purpose. And you are right, the Bible cannot interpret itself, nor exercise authority. So why not submit yourself to the authority the Bible tells you to submit to? The Catholic Church. Please provide some information or evidence regarding this belief that the original books of the Bible were different than what we have today.
And from what I have read about Karen Armstrong and her books, I won’t waste my limited time.
 
zz912 said:
  1. Of course they take their patroness seriously. That has nothing to do with my statement. If we were to find out that Mary’s mother’s name was actually Sarah, that wouldn’t change the fact that she lived, and she is a saint. It is not part of Sacred Tradition. It is tradition. I’m sure they would explain this to you as well.
  2. Why do you refuse to answer my question? Are you unsure and do not know? Or are you intentionally refusing to answer?
  3. There was one community, the Catholic Church. There were no others.
  4. Who told you it was a guide for living? It was brought together to normalize the worship service, the mass. That is Scripture’s first purpose. And you are right, the Bible cannot interpret itself, nor exercise authority. So why not submit yourself to the authority the Bible tells you to submit to? The Catholic Church. Please provide some information or evidence regarding this belief that the original books of the Bible were different than what we have today.
And from what I have read about Karen Armstrong and her books, I won’t waste my limited time.
Click to expand...
 
RevDon said:
So…the rest of the story, Paul’s testimony, is irrevant?
Click to expand...
Its certainly irrelevant to the issue of sola scriptura. Unless of course you can show how Paul’s testimony to chastening St. Peter somehow effects the Church’s right to interpret scripture
 
RevDon said:
So…the rest of the story, Paul’s testimony, is irrevant?
Click to expand...
:confused:

This is the main trust of the council of Jerusalem…the doctrinal statement made by Peter:

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Paul and Barnabas just reinforced Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement…12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul as they declared what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

Paul did not make a doctrinal decision…for he himself had to submit his gospel to the Apostles for assurance:

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.
Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.
 
zz912 said:
  1. Of course they take their patroness seriously. That has nothing to do with my statement. If we were to find out that Mary’s mother’s name was actually Sarah, that wouldn’t change the fact that she lived, and she is a saint. It is not part of Sacred Tradition. It is tradition. I’m sure they would explain this to you as well.
  2. Why do you refuse to answer my question? Are you unsure and do not know? Or are you intentionally refusing to answer?
  3. There was one community, the Catholic Church. There were no others.
  4. Who told you it was a guide for living? It was brought together to normalize the worship service, the mass. That is Scripture’s first purpose. And you are right, the Bible cannot interpret itself, nor exercise authority. So why not submit yourself to the authority the Bible tells you to submit to? The Catholic Church. Please provide some information or evidence regarding this belief that the original books of the Bible were different than what we have today.
And from what I have read about Karen Armstrong and her books, I won’t waste my limited time.
Click to expand...
  1. Are you deciding what part of tradition takes precedence?
  2. Rabbinic Judaism recognizes the 24 books of the Masoretic Text, commonly called the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible, as authoritative. Evidence suggests that the process of canonization occurred between 200 BCE and 200 CE. A popular former theory is that the Torah was canonized c. 400 BCE, the Prophets c. 200 BCE, and the Writings c. 100 CE, perhaps at a hypothetical Council of Jamnia, but this position is increasingly rejected by modern scholars. Never the less, there was a canon of what we have come to call the Old Testament that pre-dated the New Testament, which frequently quotes from it.
  3. There were communities in Rome, Ephesus, Corinth and many more, which saw themselves as part of the body of Christ, but could not yet be called the Catholic Church except in the broadest of terms. It is apparent that there was not uniformity in the style or worship until the Middle Ages, and even then, various rites in unity with Rome preserved (and to this day preserve) differences.
  4. I admire your piety, but there is no Mass in the Bible, the Bible is in the Mass. The Last Supper was an important predecessor of the Mass, and Christian meals attested to in epistles (however troublesome these might have been) suggest that food and worship were linked. The Bible is a guide for much more than Mass attendance. As an example, in Luke’s Gospel, over and over again the question is asked and answered, “What must I do?” Never is the answer “go to Mass.” In fact, though Jesus attended and participated in synagogue worship, he seems not to think much of corporate public worship. In Luke (22) he doesn’t even say, “Do this in memory of me.” I don’t want to seem like I disapprove of Mass, but there’s a whole lot more to being a follower of Jesus. Mass is one place where we can learn it and be fired up to do it.
    There are variations among the texts found in manuscripts of the various books of the Bible that we possess (and from which translators of modern Bibles must choose). The Jerusalem Bible is one excellent source that shows some of those variations. At their earliest, these are second century manuscripts. So today’s Bibles are subject to the choices made by those translators. This is not to say that they are false texts, or erroneous texts. I think we have to give some credence to the idea that God wishes that people of our day benefit from Scripture and that the Holy Spirit is still active in providing us with revelation through the work of these translators.
 
pablope said:
:confused:

This is the main trust of the council of Jerusalem…the doctrinal statement made by Peter:

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Paul and Barnabas just reinforced Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement…12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul as they declared what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

Paul did not make a doctrinal decision…for he himself had to submit his gospel to the Apostles for assurance:

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.
Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.
Click to expand...
Galatians 2: 11
And when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. 12For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised. 13And the rest of the Jews* [also] acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of all,m “If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top