Name 1 who used “Scripture Alone”

[Reformed1]

The Magisterium is the teaching body that has the God-given authority to translate, correct a translation, and interpret a translation, and teach with authority.

By the way, it is my understanding that your church has only infallibly declared the meaning of a few verses. If this is true, only a few verses of the entire canon are “infallibly” defined, how much of a help is your church in interpreting scripture?

 

[MrS]

By the way,
1] it is my understanding
2] that your church has only infallibly declared the meaning of a few verses.
3] If this is true, only a few verses of the entire canon are “infallibly” defined,
4] how much of a help is your church in interpreting scripture?

1] thanks for your honesty in saying that. You will find that it is common for many (and this includes Catholics) to have serious misunderstandings of what the church teaches.

For the sake of argument… how many verses has your community declared… and under what authority.?

2,3] Actually it is the Catholic Church which has declared all verses in Scripture to be inerrant.

4] Infallibility is the “negative” protection of the Holy Spirit which prevents only the Catholic Pope, and the Bishops in Union with Him (the Teaching Magisterium) from declaring error in the matter of Faith and Morals.

If you are familiar with the Creed… either the Nicene, The Apostels, or the Athanasius… these form the core of Catholic Beliefs… and all are supported by the Catholic Book which the world refers to as the Bible… either explicity or implicity.

To say that each MUST be clearly taught in the Scriptures is the most common mistake of our separated brethren… I guess that is one reason why they (and yourself) are separated from the Church founded by Jesus Himself.

“Scripture alone” begins with the erroneous thought process that it is the sole source for the Truth… when the Scripture itself says different.

 

[MrS]

See, claiming something was taught by Jesus or the apostles is simple, Mormons do something similar all the time. Demonstrating that this was the case is another matter entirely.

Can I assume that you might claim that Sola Scripture ( and Fide for that matter) is or was taught by Jesus or the Apostles.

Can I assume that you might claim that no baptism for infants was taught by Jesus or His Apostles.

Can I assume that you might claim that Virgin Birth was denied by Jesus or the Apostles?

Can I assume that you might claim that Jesus or the Apostles gave the command to write any of the New Testament?

Regardless of your position on this…

It is either just your position… or you have some authority to declare your position as not only fact, but inerrant fact.

Jesus claimed ALL authority. He then, in His lifetime, gave awesome authority and powers (and commands) only to the Apostles… including the right/priviledge to pass these powers on to others they selected.

All that only continues in the Catholic Church.

.

 

[kaycee]

2,3] Actually it is the Catholic Church which has declared all verses in Scripture to be inerrant.

I think the question pertained to how many verses have been infallibly defined, where the meaning or interpretation of the verse has been officially pronounced. Reformed1 is correct, there are but a handfull. Matt 16, John 6, etc…

 

[Letchitsa1]

Or to add to the circular argument here, if tradition is to be completely ignored, as some adherents of sola scriptura advocate, then logically sola scriptura is to be ignored as well because after about a generation or two, belief in sola scriptura also becomes tradition, and as the initial argument stated, tradition is to be ignored.

Seems to me that Sola scriptura is, in itself, a circular argument.

 

[Redbandito]

I assume you are in some way trying to use this to disprove Sola Scriptura. This approach actually demonstrates a lack of understanding of SS and to Protestant ears is parallel to what Catholics hear when they are accused of worshipping Mary.

“Sola Scriptura” refers to Scripture as the ultimate sole authority, in contrast to Scripture plus Tradition as equal, or Prima Scriptura, where both are accepted as authoritative, but with Scripture as always ahead. You seem to push SS to absurdity, which distorts it and reduces understanding.

Actually, he’s not that far off. Since Protestants generally view their interpretation of Scripture as synonomous with the authority of Scripture, Protestants unknowlingly add equate tradition with Scripture.

 

[Redbandito]

I think the question pertained to how many verses have been infallibly defined, where the meaning or interpretation of the verse has been officially pronounced. Reformed1 is correct, there are but a handfull. Matt 16, John 6, etc…

This is correct Kaycee. The Church is infallible over faith and morals. What that does not mean is that the Pope must go through and “infallibly” interpret every passage of the Scripture. The Church gives us an infallible lens with which to read the infallible Scripture. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[mo3]

Okay, can you show me where your Church claims that the apostles understood and taught the immaculate conception?

Biblical Basis for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. by Jim Seghers
At the Annunciation Mary question, “How can this be” (Lk 1:34) makes no sense except in the concept of a vow of lifelong virginity. This is the understanding from the earliest interpretations of this passage. Mary and Joseph were betrothed, that is, legally married at the time of the Annunciation. It’s hardly sensible to suppose that Mary’s question was an inquiry regarding the biological process of how children were conceived. A second Biblical argument that supports the traditional Christian belief in Mary’s perpetual centers around the account of Jesus being found in the temple at age twelve (Lk 2:41-51). There is no hint of other children. In the passages that refer to Jesus’ brothers, the sacred authors are careful to only call Jesus the son of Mary, no one else. Additionally, in referring to Jesus as “the son of Mary” (Mk 6:3), the force of the Greek implies that Jesus was Mary’s only son, not a son. In the Jewish society in which Jesus lived, younger sons never gave public advice to an older brother, much less, the oldest son. This would be very disrespectful. Yet, we find Jesus’ brethren advising Jesus to leave Galilee and go to Judea to make a name for himself (Jn 7:3-4). Similarly, at another time his brethren attempted to restrain him saying: “He is out of his mind (Mk 3:21).” These passages are understandable if these brethren were in fact Jesus’ uncles.
Lastly, Jesus’ action at the foot of the cross, when he entrusted his mother to John, makes no sense if Mary had other sons (Jn 19:26-27). The social customs of the time would have made such an action unthinkable.

If you can, can you further show me where this belief was in the first few centuries of the church? .

(All references are to: The Faith of the Early Fathers, edited and translated by W. A. Jurgens (The Liturgical Press, Collegeville: Minn, c. 1979), III Vols.
St. Athanasius (358-362) in his Discourse Against the Arians called the Mother of Jesus, “the ever-virgin Mary” #767a, I, p. 330.
Didymus the Blind (381-392 - He was head of the catechetical school at Alexandria) “for neither did Mary. . . marry anyone, nor did she ever become the mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin.” #1073, II, p. 62.
St. Epiphanius of Salamis (374) “the holy ever-virgin Mary” and “to Holy Mary is invariably added, for that Holy Woman remains undefiled.” #1111, II, p.76.
St. Jerome (383) wrote a whole treatise called: Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, II, pp. 190-192.
St. Augustine (391-430) “a virgin conceiving, a virgin bearing, a virgin pregnant, a virgin bringing forth, a virgin perpetual.” #1518, III, p.30; also: #1642, III, p. 71; #1974d, p. 166.
Leoporius (426) “the ever-virgin Mary” Document of Amendment, #2048, III, p. 197.

See, claiming something was taught by Jesus or the apostles is simple, Mormons do something similar all the time. Demonstrating that this was the case is another matter entirely.

Actually, claiming something was not taught is “very” simple. I agree demonstrating what was taught is much harder. The Bible is not an easy book to read or understand. Comprehending everything Jesus taught is even harder. God bless.

 

[mo3]

So, exactly what traditions from Jesus or the apostles have been handed down to your Church?

Others have listed some of the Sacred Traditions. Sacred Tradition should not be confused with customs and disciplines, even customs and disciplines within the Catholic Church. Neither should it be linked with the “tradition of men” condemned in Sacred Scripture.

Please remember all Sacred Traditions are backed up by Sacred Scripture. God bless.