Matthew 5:18 for sola scriptura?

[dcastlen50]

Historically speaking, it does not appear that Luther’s original intent was to break with the Catholic Church, but rather to persuade Church authorities to address some key issues and out and out abuses which were taking place at the time. Some of these abuses included the selling of indulgences, the selling of Church offices, and the keeping of mistresses by some priests. These were real problems and needed to be addressed but Luther’s approach was certainly naive at best! He only broke from the Church when he reached the conclusion that the Church wasn’t going to listen to him.

I’m not going to assume that he was motivated by Satan, I think we use that assumption too often and too quickly about people who live in our own times, let alone to so judge those who died hundreds of years ago and whom we can only know through the (often biased) writings of others.

The fracturing of the Protestant Church is simply the logical outcome of trying to deny the necessity of both tradition and teaching authority in the interpretation of scripture. This denial also ignores the fact that scripture is of itself, tradition written down! The earliest manuscripts of books of the New Testament date only to about 60 - 70 AD… initially, all Holy Scripture was the stories passed down among believers until they were finally written down. Tradition, and authority are three legs of the same stool. Without all three, the stool is unstable. This is why there are so many fractures among the Christian believers.

The irony is that “sola scriptura”, by denying the Papal authority, set the stage for the Protestant churches to end up being run by the earthly monarchs for their own purposes… one need only look at the history of the “Church of England” to see how this worked out!

I am a revert. I have discovered after coming home that there is a lot of “other churches” within the Catholic church. Why do the Bishops allow those who publicly denounce dogma of the church to not be excumunicated. My protestant friends tell me, “See you guys believe essential contradicting things also; otherwise, why do your leaders allow abortion to be preached by Catholics.” Tell me, what is your opinion regarding this?

 

[sskyking]

I am a revert. I have discovered after coming home that there is a lot of “other churches” within the Catholic church. Why do the Bishops allow those who publicly denounce dogma of the church to not be excumunicated. My protestant friends tell me, “See you guys believe essential contradicting things also; otherwise, why do your leaders allow abortion to be preached by Catholics.” Tell me, what is your opinion regarding this?

First, I would point out that excommunication is the Church’s equivalent of a nuclear weapon and it’s use must be carefully and thoughtfully considered.

From the Catechism: “1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.”

I “think” that only the Pope can formally excommunicate, although I may be mistaken as it’s not clear from this article. If the Pope were to start throwing formal excommunications around at every opportunity, he likely wouldn’t accomplish very much, and at the same time, wouldn’t really be reflecting the message of forgiveness and love which Christ left us.

On the other hand, another reference in the Catechism seems to address another form of excommunication which while not accompanied by any formal decree, seems to have the same effect, even if most are not aware of it.

“2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.”

Putting the two articles together, it would appear (to me, at least) that active participation in an abortion would place one in a state of grave mortal sin, which cannot be absolved except under the conditions stated in the first article… therefore article 1415 would appear to apply:

1415 Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.

Will that likely stop them? Probably not, but Jesus will sort that out with them later! We need to remind ourselves that we are a church of human beings… all of us sinners, all of us weak. I love the epitaph selected by Ruth Bell Graham, wife of Billy Graham… “Construction completed… Thank you for your patience”

Finally, in answer to what to say to your Protestant friends? I’d answer them just like Jesus did in Matthew 7:3 - “Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?”. Show me a sin committed by a member of one church and I will show you that sin committed by someone in all churches!

 

[Katrina5]

Historically speaking, it does not appear that Luther’s original intent was to break with the Catholic Church, but rather to persuade Church authorities to address some key issues and out and out abuses which were taking place at the time. Some of these abuses included the selling of indulgences, the selling of Church offices, and the keeping of mistresses by some priests. These were real problems and needed to be addressed but Luther’s approach was certainly naive at best! He only broke from the Church when he reached the conclusion that the Church wasn’t going to listen to him.

I’m not going to assume that he was motivated by Satan, I think we use that assumption too often and too quickly about people who live in our own times, let alone to so judge those who died hundreds of years ago and whom we can only know through the (often biased) writings of others.

The fracturing of the Protestant Church is simply the logical outcome of trying to deny the necessity of both tradition and teaching authority in the interpretation of scripture. This denial also ignores the fact that scripture is of itself, tradition written down! The earliest manuscripts of books of the New Testament date only to about 60 - 70 AD… initially, all Holy Scripture was the stories passed down among believers until they were finally written down. Tradition, and authority are three legs of the same stool. Without all three, the stool is unstable. This is why there are so many fractures among the Christian believers.

The irony is that “sola scriptura”, by denying the Papal authority, set the stage for the Protestant churches to end up being run by the earthly monarchs for their own purposes… one need only look at the history of the “Church of England” to see how this worked out!

I understand that Luther was trying to reform the Church. But he became so frustrated in his attempts that he broke off, rather than actually reform it.
From what I have read about the Reformation (after visiting Geneva, Switzerland) I agree that we shouldn’t judge dead people. However, he got the ball rolling, along with Calvin, Knox, and Swengli, and of course Henry VIII.
The result was not reform but rupture and disaster.

While that isn’t Satan at work, it is evil in that they all put their own ideologies and selves in front of the Authority of the Church.

Look at Catherine of Sienna for an example of how the Reformation could have happened, or Francis of Assisi, Anthony of Padua, and Francis de Sales.

Things would be totally different now. Or maybe not, but the way Europe is today is a sad result of these powerful “holy men.”

 

[Katrina5]

First, I would point out that excommunication is the Church’s equivalent of a nuclear weapon and it’s use must be carefully and thoughtfully considered.

From the Catechism: “1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.”

I “think” that only the Pope can formally excommunicate, although I may be mistaken as it’s not clear from this article. If the Pope were to start throwing formal excommunications around at every opportunity, he likely wouldn’t accomplish very much, and at the same time, wouldn’t really be reflecting the message of forgiveness and love which Christ left us.

On the other hand, another reference in the Catechism seems to address another form of excommunication which while not accompanied by any formal decree, seems to have the same effect, even if most are not aware of it.

“2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.”

Putting the two articles together, it would appear (to me, at least) that active participation in an abortion would place one in a state of grave mortal sin, which cannot be absolved except under the conditions stated in the first article… therefore article 1415 would appear to apply:

1415 Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.

Will that likely stop them? Probably not, but Jesus will sort that out with them later! We need to remind ourselves that we are a church of human beings… all of us sinners, all of us weak. I love the epitaph selected by Ruth Bell Graham, wife of Billy Graham… “Construction completed… Thank you for your patience”

Finally, in answer to what to say to your Protestant friends? I’d answer them just like Jesus did in Matthew 7:3 - “Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?”. Show me a sin committed by a member of one church and I will show you that sin committed by someone in all churches!

I agree that excommunication isn’t to be taken lightly, and could be self defeating if everyone who commits a grave sin was excommunicated. They would turn away from forgiveness to join another church, or possibly start their own church, which has been part of this thread.

Disagree? Start your own church! Be your own Pope. Don’t humble yourself and admit you’re wrong, just start a fresh, new church.

I believe bishops have the authority to excommunicate. It seems to me that all mitigating factors should be considered, especially in cases such as abortion. Divorces are granted with all factors considered. But Jesus always said, “Go and sin no more,” so we must try to change our ways and be that new creation.

I am 100% Pro-Life, all life, all the time. Everyone deserves a second chance.

 

[dcastlen50]

First, I would point out that excommunication is the Church’s equivalent of a nuclear weapon and it’s use must be carefully and thoughtfully considered.
How many babies are killed each year in America alone? I don’ think as much as most atomic bombs.

From the Catechism: “1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.”

I “think” that only the Pope can formally excommunicate, although I may be mistaken as it’s not clear from this article. If the Pope were to start throwing formal excommunications around at every opportunity,
Goodness gracious! “around at every opportunity,” you make it sound like I want anyone who burps excuminicated. I clearly wrote those who publicly deny dogma that is essential to the church.

he likely wouldn’t accomplish very much, and at the same time, wouldn’t really be reflecting the message of forgiveness and love which Christ left us.

God bless you, but when my neighbor continues to rape my wife and kill my children I am required to take up arms. Who said it wouldn’t do much good. It would sound the trumpet that this view is wrong. By the way, “we are not to judge…” means we are not to judge their soul; but we must judge their actions. When one kills another we must say,“that is wrong.” And “we” should be the leaders of our moral paradymn first.

On the other hand, another reference in the Catechism seems to address another form of excommunication which while not accompanied by any formal decree, seems to have the same effect, even if most are not aware of it.

“2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.”

Putting the two articles together, it would appear (to me, at least) that active participation in an abortion would place one in a state of grave mortal sin, which cannot be absolved except under the conditions stated in the first article… therefore article 1415 would appear to apply:

1415 Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.

Will that likely stop them? Probably not, but Jesus will sort that out with them later! We need to remind ourselves that we are a church of human beings… all of us sinners, all of us weak. I love the epitaph selected by Ruth Bell Graham, wife of Billy Graham… “Construction completed… Thank you for your patience”

Your argument is a non-sequitur combined with an irrelevant conclusion. Because we are a church of human beings, you infer, that the leaders of our church should never excuminicate someone who is well know and respected and encourages others to murder and to go against the one true church. Where is the connnection!?

Finally, in answer to what to say to your Protestant friends? I’d answer them just like Jesus did in Matthew 7:3 - “Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?”.

No! My protestant friend is not condeming. He really wants to know about Jesus Christ and my claim of one true visible church given my the Christ he loves. Gosh! he says this sounds so good, but your Vicar and the magistrium don’t do a thing. To respond like a sales pitch with those words smell of as much condemnation as the one with the splinter.

Show me a sin committed by a member of one church and I will show you that sin committed by someone in all churches!

We need to be the light of the world; not give excuses for our lack of light.

 

[sskyking]

We need to be the light of the world; not give excuses for our lack of light.

It is not my intent to make excuses, but to point out that our first call is to charity. After further investigation on this forum into excommunication, I found an article that directly addresses excommunication and abortion. It can be found at: catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0711fea4.asp

Perhaps it’s final sentence explains it best:
Excommunication is a word that is often bandied about by Catholics, non-Catholics, and the media. However, when properly understood within the context of canon law, it is a penalty that the Church only applies in the rarest of cases, as a last resort, and for the purpose of helping to bring about the offender’s repentance.

 

[dcastlen50]

It is not my intent to make excuses, but to point out that our first call is to charity. After further investigation on this forum into excommunication, I found an article that directly addresses excommunication and abortion. It can be found at: catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0711fea4.asp

Perhaps it’s final sentence explains it best:
Excommunication is a word that is often bandied about by Catholics, non-Catholics, and the media. However, when properly understood within the context of canon law, it is a penalty that the Church only applies in the rarest of cases, as a last resort, and for the purpose of helping to bring about the offender’s repentance.

Last resort, termial, final, end, abortion

 

[schofie]

Hi,
I never post anywhere but felt I wanted to on this subject.
I agree with the others that Matthew 5:18 does not come close to sola scriptura.
I feel sorrowful for those who have been decieved by this concept. There are many places to see the error of this concept of only going what the written word in text says.
Many versions of scripture have had wording changes to suit personal beliefs over the past 6-700 years.
Two main things come into mind concerning this sola scriptura to my mind:

2 Thes. 2:15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. - this alone would certainly be enough to convince those who would consider the scriptures to require a literal translation that sola scriptura is inadequate.

“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53). Are these words of Jesus from John 6:53 to be taken literally or figuratively? If you agree with sola scriptura - then you must also agree with this as a literal translation as does the Catholic church. Some have actually changed the word “IS” to something else. How sad this makes me for those who have been decieved. It may seem a stretch to jump from transubstantiation doubters to sola scriptura, but how can one define scripture as literal - and deny whatever text they so choose in the next breath?

 

[dcastlen50]

“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53). Are these words of Jesus from John 6:53 to be taken literally or figuratively? If you agree with sola scriptura - then you must also agree with this as a literal translation as does the Catholic church. Some have actually changed the word “IS” to something else. How sad this makes me for those who have been decieved. It may seem a stretch to jump from transubstantiation doubters to sola scriptura, but how can one define scripture as literal - and deny whatever text they so choose in the next breath?

And just to add to you thoughtful insight, this passage “…unless you eat my body…” appears numerous times in the NT. I will not offer my argument that it also appears in the OT.
When I was a protestant, I often heard it said that if a verse is in the bible more than once it is very important; three times, it warrants exceptional attention. Just in the book of John, I think, it appears at least five times.
Never the less, you seem to realize they (prostestants) have a strong love of Jesus. And “…if God so loved us,we must love one another.” They are a part of us.

What do you think: We have the whole package and we don’t seem to show it. They only have the Scriptures (and not all of the Scriptures). With the little they have they get very close to Jesus; with the enormity of what we have, I would think we would have more saints. First, are my propostions true (in your opinion)? If so, then why so little fruit?

 

[7_Sorrows]

Matthew 5:18 (New International Version)
18 “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

how can matthew 5:18 be read in context? Looks like it supports the notion of sola scriptura isn’t it?

or it supports judaism.

 

[dcastlen50]

or it supports judaism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamil joseph02
Matthew 5:18 (New International Version)
18 “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

how can matthew 5:18 be read in context? Looks like it supports the notion of sola scriptura isn’t it?

“Looks like it supports the notion of sola scriptura…?” You argument seems to go like this:
Verse 18 of Mt’s 5th Chapter clearly says that “…the law will not change until everything is accomplished.” So, all laws given by God are that which will not change until everythiing is accomplished. And you say therefore the only source of truth regarding God is the law - sola scriptura.
There is no connection here between The law not changing and the source(s) of truth. Your argument is a perfect example of a Non sequitur; from the first premise the conclusion (just) doesn’t follow.

 

[JamesE24]

QUOTE]What do you think: We have the whole package and we don’t seem to show it. They only have the Scriptures (and not all of the Scriptures). With the little they have they get very close to Jesus; with the enormity of what we have, I would think we would have more saints. First, are my propostions true (in your opinion)? If so, then why so little fruit?QUOTE]

Yes, they can get very close to Jesus…their own interpretation of Jesus.

I am not saying that all Protestants have a false relationship with Christ. (Far from it. They put most of us to shame… )

But I do think that it is easier to have a relationship with someone when you can interpret whatever they say to mean exactly what you want. And isn’t that what the whole Protestant dilemma is about? Interpreting scripture the way they want it?

 

[sskyking]

Yes, they can get very close to Jesus…their own interpretation of Jesus.

I am not saying that all Protestants have a false relationship with Christ. (Far from it. They put most of us to shame… )

But I do think that it is easier to have a relationship with someone when you can interpret whatever they say to mean exactly what you want. And isn’t that what the whole Protestant dilemma is about? Interpreting scripture the way they want it?

You know, sometimes I think Catholic’s and Protestants spend so much time trying to save each other that they forget that the whole point is to saved those who don’t know God at all!

Going back to the original point. “sola scriptura” was never true… in fact Luther not only coined it, but he deliberately mis-translated scripture to justify it by adding “alone” to the scripture that “man is saved by faith”. I’m sure he had the best of intentions, but it was a lie. It must also be recognized that all current religious denominations are today referring to tradition in interpreting scripture whether they admit it or not! Humans can’t avoid it!

 

[dcastlen50]

You know, sometimes I think Catholic’s and Protestants spend so much time trying to save each other that they forget that the whole point is to saved those who don’t know God at all!

Going back to the original point. “sola scriptura” was never true… in fact Luther not only coined it, but he deliberately mis-translated scripture to justify it by adding “alone” to the scripture that “man is saved by faith”. I’m sure he had the best of intentions, but it was a lie. It must also be recognized that all current religious denominations are today referring to tradition in interpreting scripture whether they admit it or not! Humans can’t avoid it!

Amen!!!

 

[DavidPalm]

I am one of the authors of the cited piece. I have posted my own comments concerning the varied reactions to it here:

thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2009/05/bad-argument-is-bad-argument.html

 

[cdanison]

What does Sola Scriptura" mean? I’m a convert, trying to learn all I can. Guess this got by me. Thanks.

 

[Godfollower]

What does Sola Scriptura" mean? I’m a convert, trying to learn all I can. Guess this got by me. Thanks.

Sola scriptura (Latin for “Scripture alone”) is a Protestant doctrine, first invented by Martin Luther during the Protestant Reformation, that basically says that the Bible is the only authority on earth for understanding the Faith, and that all knowledge necessary for salvation is contained in it; the doctrine also asserts that any person with good intent can understand the Bible and what God meant by its teachings, without needing another human to understand it (although they generally accept the role of Pastors in explaining the Scriptures, they reserve the right to go find another one with a better interpretation if they don’t like what their pastor is saying).

Not all Protestants believe in this doctrine, but many do. One phrase you will often find when talking with Protestants about this doctrine is the idea that you should not follow traditions of men. They’re citing a Biblical passage, of course, albeit not correctly: the Bible says that we should not elevate traditions of men above those of God; it does not teach that traditions of men are bad, and it does not teach that traditions of men are inherently different than those of God.

The idea of Sola Scriptura is obviously self-contradictory and is not followed in practice, except in lip service. Everyone who believes in this doctrine has his or her own traditions used in interpreting the Bible, though they will generally deny it; the problem with this denial is that the Bible itself teaches that we are to follow all traditions handed on to us by the Apostles, not just the ones they handed down in writing and incorporated into the Bible. So the “Bible alone” doctrine actually violates itself: in order to follow it, you have to follow a man-made tradition instead of what the Bible actually teaches.

It really comes down to a question of authority: are you going to accept what the Church teaches as handed down from God, or are you going to make up your own moral rules? If you’d prefer the latter, Sola Scriptura can be a tempting way to go.

 

[cdanison]

Sola scriptura (Latin for “Scripture alone”) is a Protestant doctrine, first invented by Martin Luther during the Protestant Reformation, that basically says that the Bible is the only authority on earth for understanding the Faith, and that all knowledge necessary for salvation is contained in it; the doctrine also asserts that any person with good intent can understand the Bible and what God meant by its teachings, without needing another human to understand it (although they generally accept the role of Pastors in explaining the Scriptures, they reserve the right to go find another one with a better interpretation if they don’t like what their pastor is saying).

Not all Protestants believe in this doctrine, but many do. One phrase you will often find when talking with Protestants about this doctrine is the idea that you should not follow traditions of men. They’re citing a Biblical passage, of course, albeit not correctly: the Bible says that we should not elevate traditions of men above those of God; it does not teach that traditions of men are bad, and it does not teach that traditions of men are inherently different than those of God.

The idea of Sola Scriptura is obviously self-contradictory and is not followed in practice, except in lip service. Everyone who believes in this doctrine has his or her own traditions used in interpreting the Bible, though they will generally deny it; the problem with this denial is that the Bible itself teaches that we are to follow all traditions handed on to us by the Apostles, not just the ones they handed down in writing and incorporated into the Bible. So the “Bible alone” doctrine actually violates itself: in order to follow it, you have to follow a man-made tradition instead of what the Bible actually teaches.

It really comes down to a question of authority: are you going to accept what the Church teaches as handed down from God, or are you going to make up your own moral rules? If you’d prefer the latter, Sola Scriptura can be a tempting way to go.

Thank you for the information.

Connie

 

[jamil_joseph02]

what are the questions Catholics must ask in order to refute* sola scriptura*?

 

[sskyking]

what are the questions Catholics must ask in order to refute* sola scriptura*?

Oh, it’s so tempting just to lead off with asking if they were aware that Luther had to add words to his translation of scripture in order to come up with it! But I don’t suspect that would have the desired effect.

To me, the key point is to realize that scripture is, of itself, tradition. It took 60-70 years after the death and resurrection of Christ before the first book of the New Testament was put in writing. Before that, accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus were handed down in spoken stories in the same way American Indians passed down their cultural history.

Now, don’t misunderstand, we are NOT talking about the childhood game of Telephone here… in that culture, stories were carefully taught and memorized, and they were repeated faithfully amongst an audience where more than one person knew the details and would quickly correct a mistake. These cultures faithfully protected the main message of the stories, though non-essential details may have varied in subtle ways.

This is an important point to understand because it would’ve been the traditions which corrected any errant tendencies in the transmission of the stories. In fact, you will find that most doctrinal statements of the Church have come in response to events in which people have begun to stray from the core message. For instance, the only two times in which Papal infallibility has been invoked were on the doctrine of the virgin birth and the assumption of Mary, both of which were long universally accepted within the Church but were only written down as doctrine in response to critics who disagreed and the demands of the faithful.