LCUM teaches the Pope is the Antichrist?

[Dauphin]

modernreformation.org/default.php?page=printfriendly&var1=Print&var2=19

Jon

I read enough to know that you’ve posted a very poor apologetic. Catholic doctrine doesn’t speak of two sources of revelation. Scripture is the written component of the tradition, and itself relies on the oral component (the Canon of scripture). The doctrine of sola scriptura is an invention of Luther, alien not only to the Fathers, but to scripture itself, in which the role of the oral tradition is explicitly asserted.

 

[JonNC]

Yes I know.

Similarly, we Catholic don’t consider the dogmas that were defined at Trent and Vatican I to be new doctrine, but we sometimes have trouble convincing our separated brethren of that.

Good point. One person’s early church teaching is another’s new doctrine. Another good reason for dialogue instead of polemics.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I read enough to know that you’ve posted a very poor apologetic. Catholic doctrine doesn’t speak of two sources of revelation. Scripture is the written component of the tradition, and itself relies on the oral component (the Canon of scripture). The doctrine of sola scriptura is an invention of Luther, alien not only to the Fathers, but to scripture itself, in which the role of the oral tradition is explicitly asserted.

Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Jon

 

[jean8]

Yes I know.

Similarly, we Catholic don’t consider the dogmas that were defined at Trent and Vatican I to be new doctrine, but we sometimes have trouble convincing our separated brethren of that.

Peter,
Dogma, ‘that which seems right.’ according to the magisterium.
I will continue to use the Bible. 2 Tim.3:16
See also Rev.22;18-20
What has the rcc added to scripture?

jean8

 

[jean8]

I read enough to know that you’ve posted a very poor apologetic. Catholic doctrine doesn’t speak of two sources of revelation. Scripture is the written component of the tradition, and itself relies on the oral component (the Canon of scripture). The doctrine of sola scriptura is an invention of Luther, alien not only to the Fathers, but to scripture itself, in which the role of the oral tradition is explicitly asserted.

dauphin,
Your correct, there is only one. The Bible. 2Tim.3:16
See also,

justforcatholics.org/a74.htm

jean8

 

[Dauphin]

dauphin,
Your correct, there is only one. The Bible. 2Tim.3:16
See also,

justforcatholics.org/a74.htm

jean8

Does your Bible have an inspired table of contents? If not, how then do you know what the books of the Bible are?

The answer, of course, is that you rely on what has been passed down to you. You rely on your protestant tradition to define which books constitute the Canon of scripture. So, the doctrine of sola scriptura is proved incoherent, since it implicitly admits the role of oral tradition.

Also, whenever I see that scripture quoted as a defense of sola scriptura, I have to laugh. Since St. Paul was writing before the Canon of scripture was even defined, he could not have been referring to the new testament as we know it today. Even if he were referring to the King James Bible, he only called it “profitable”, not sufficient.

 

[Peter_J]

Good point. One person’s early church teaching is another’s new doctrine.

Agreed.

BTW, here’s an good Cardinal Newman quote: “the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum, through the channel either of Scripture or Tradition.”

Another good reason for dialogue instead of polemics.

Jon