Proof that sola scriptura is not true

[WayneTalbot]

The Popes taught hatred of the Jews - that is directly contrary to Jesus’ commandment to love one another, which the Church also teaches, thus the Pope contradicted Church teachings.

I thought that I ought to be somewhat more specific, “hatred” being such a nasty word and hard to justify literally.
Let me rephrase - the Pope Paul IV fostered hatred of the Jews by his Papal Bull, Cum nimis absurdum, wherein he blamed Jews for their own troubles, and imposed restrictions on how they were to live. Among other things:
He banned work on Sundays, even though he knew that the Jews observed the Sabbath (Saturday).
He banned fraternisation between Jews and Catholics.
He banned Jewish physicians from treating Catholics.
He insisted that accounting be done in Latin or Italian, otherwise the accounts would not be binding on Catholics (thus telling Catholics that they only needed to be honest in Latin or Italian, such a moral approach).
He restricted trade, prohibiting Jews from trading in grain, barley or any other commodity essential to human welfare (bit like the Nazis if you think about it).
He restricted where they could live, created a Jewish enclave with just one entrance and exit (which other despot did that I wonder).
He prohibited them from owning real estate, and denigrated them by making them wear a yellow badge to identify them as Jews (is this where the Nazis got the idea?).

Now I might be really thick, but all of that would seem to me to be contrary to Jesus’ teachings, and if I am to believe that the Roman Catholic Church teaches Jesus’ teachings, then this Papal Bull contradicts Catholic Church teachings.

Am I missing something?

Pope Pius IV extended the ghettos, and Pius V recommended them to bordering states (“teachings” in a way). Neither of these gentlemen seem very pious to me.

I cannot find when this Papal Bull was retracted, if ever.

It is clear to me, although apparently not to faithful Catholics, that previous Popes have contradicted Church doctrine, thus invalidating any claim to a monopoly on completeness of truth.
If the above mentioned Popes had bothered to check Sacred Scripture, they would have understood the error of their ways. Now I don’t think that they were uneducated, I think they knew Scripture and Church teachings, but they deliberately chose to flaunt God’s Word for their own political ends.
The really sickening aspect of this Papal Bull is the sheer hypocrisy of it, for it contains the justification “Considering that the Church of Rome tolerates these very Jews (evidence of the true Christian faith)”. How ironic that it is termed “bull”.

I would be very curious to hear your defence.

 

[fdmilkis]

I don’t know, you will have to ask God.

What if God is telling me to follow Catholic teachings?

 

[WayneTalbot]

What if God is telling me to follow Catholic teachings?

Follow the directions of God.
In particular, follow what He told us in Scripture.
Start with 1 Thessalonians 5:21, “Test all things, hold fast to what is good”.
I would never suggest to anyone that they should not follow Catholic teachings as a generality, only that they should test the teachings against Scripture.
It is never my contention that the Catholic Church is wrong, per se, simply that Rome does not have a monopoly on the truths taught by Jesus, and that the Church is given to error from time to time. I do not hold with the view that there is only one “true” church in terms of denominations, they all are given to error, and we must use Scripture to help us recognise these errors.
Why there can be so many denominations, and as some put it, so many “versions of truth”, is something I do not fully understand, particularly as so many devout Christians pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and yet still come up with different answers.
One thing I do know, and that is many errors stem from politics and pride, and a refusal to accept the simple meaning of Scripture when available.
As an exercise in using Scripture, take any one doctrine of the Church and research the proof texts given. Categorise the value of the proof texts, independent of one another, as Obviously true, Maybe true, Contrary to the simple meaning, Probably a stretch, Outrageous Interpretation. Then see whether there is any corroboration of the Obviously true, and work your way through them. Repeat the exercise with another doctrine.
It is instructive, interesting, and in most cases, very revealing.

Our salvation is dependent, not on our relationship with any particular church, but on our relationship with Jesus Christ.
Never forget that.

 

[believer112]

I thought that I ought to be somewhat more specific, “hatred” being such a nasty word and hard to justify literally.
Let me rephrase - the Pope Paul IV fostered hatred of the Jews by his Papal Bull, Cum nimis absurdum, wherein he blamed Jews for their own troubles, and imposed restrictions on how they were to live. Among other things:
He banned work on Sundays, even though he knew that the Jews observed the Sabbath (Saturday).
He banned fraternisation between Jews and Catholics.
He banned Jewish physicians from treating Catholics.
He insisted that accounting be done in Latin or Italian, otherwise the accounts would not be binding on Catholics (thus telling Catholics that they only needed to be honest in Latin or Italian, such a moral approach).
He restricted trade, prohibiting Jews from trading in grain, barley or any other commodity essential to human welfare (bit like the Nazis if you think about it).
He restricted where they could live, created a Jewish enclave with just one entrance and exit (which other despot did that I wonder).
He prohibited them from owning real estate, and denigrated them by making them wear a yellow badge to identify them as Jews (is this where the Nazis got the idea?).

Now I might be really thick, but all of that would seem to me to be contrary to Jesus’ teachings, and if I am to believe that the Roman Catholic Church teaches Jesus’ teachings, then this Papal Bull contradicts Catholic Church teachings.

Am I missing something?

Pope Pius IV extended the ghettos, and Pius V recommended them to bordering states (“teachings” in a way). Neither of these gentlemen seem very pious to me.

I cannot find when this Papal Bull was retracted, if ever.

It is clear to me, although apparently not to faithful Catholics, that previous Popes have contradicted Church doctrine, thus invalidating any claim to a monopoly on completeness of truth.
If the above mentioned Popes had bothered to check Sacred Scripture, they would have understood the error of their ways. Now I don’t think that they were uneducated, I think they knew Scripture and Church teachings, but they deliberately chose to flaunt God’s Word for their own political ends.
The really sickening aspect of this Papal Bull is the sheer hypocrisy of it, for it contains the justification “Considering that the Church of Rome tolerates these very Jews (evidence of the true Christian faith)”. How ironic that it is termed “bull”.

I would be very curious to hear your defence.

I think that you have fallen into the trap of judging people who live in the past with modern eyes. The papacy of Paul IV was in the late 16th century, The Catholic World was miniscule compared to what it is today. The Bull that you speak about does
limit trade and put constraints of Jews . It does not say that it is okay to hate the Jews . It does not say it is okay to kill the Jews .It does not say that the Jews should be forced to convert. It does not say it is okay to confiscate their belongings , nor does it establish death camps .

I think it is unfair to compare the writings of a Pope , that lived in 1555 to the more modern actions of Hitler. After all , we can never know the complete story as to why *cum nimis absurdum *was written the way it is , and to judge the Pope’s writings with today’s standards and norms is inherently distasteful.

Your writings seem to question the Tradition of papal infallibility.
As Catholics we believe that the Pope ,guided by the Holy Spirit
is infallible when he speaks about morals ,dogma and canon law.
Since the Pope ,is Christ’s Vicar on earth , he cannot make a mistake about the Church’s moral teachings and interpetation of
Scripture

Sola scriptura allows everyone who believes that he /she has the guidance of the Holy Spirit to interpret and act on his/her interpretation without any checks or balances. and asusch it is
a very dangerous principle

 

[WayneTalbot]

I think that you have fallen into the trap of judging people who live in the past with modern eyes. The papacy of Paul IV was in the late 16th century, The Catholic World was miniscule compared to what it is today. The Bull that you speak about does limit trade and put constraints of Jews . It does not say that it is okay to hate the Jews .

I thought that I had clarified that, I said that it fostered hatred of the Jews, and it did.

It does not say it is okay to confiscate their belongings , nor does it establish death camps .

True, but I did not say that, nor did I suggest that.

I think it is unfair to compare the writings of a Pope , that lived in 1555 to the more modern actions of Hitler. After all , we can never know the complete story as to why *cum nimis absurdum *was written the way it is , and to judge the Pope’s writings with today’s standards and norms is inherently distasteful.\QUOTE]

That the Pope instituted measures identical to many instituted by the Nazis is a completely valid and fair comparison, or should we say that the Nazis acted like Pope Pius IV?
Of course it is all very distasteful !!!
What is distasteful is what the Pope did, and dare I suggest, it may well be distasteful to some for you to attempt to justify the Pope’s actions. You might ask the Jews, the recipients of the persecution, whether they see it as distasteful. And why do you focus on “writings”, as if they are somehow separate from teachings and actions?

It matters not why the Pope did it, Jesus did not say it was ok to persecute if political or current circumstances make it seem like a good idea. If we are Christians, and follow Christ’s teachings, standards and norms of behaviour do not change. You are sounding like a Protestant who says that we should make the church more contemporary. One of the values that the Catholic Church claims to add is consistency, a refusal to move with the times, a resilience against those who would challenge God’s Word.

If it was the King of Spain, or Portugal, or the Sultan of Istanbul, or some other Moslem leader that promulgated an order in 1555 specifying the particulars of how the Jews were to be persecuted, would you still be offering the same defence for their actions?

If it would not be ok for them, why would it be ok for the Pope?
Conversely, if it was ok for the Pope, it should be ok for others, after all, one should take the lead from Rome !

Your writings seem to question the Tradition of papal infallibility. As Catholics we believe that the Pope ,guided by the Holy Spirit is infallible when he speaks about orals ,dogma and canon law.

I did not mention infallibility, I simply pointed out where the Church had erred, demonstrating that it is capable of error. Now, if a Papal Bull is not law, what is it? Is it just a guideline that Catholics can follow if they choose so to do, or not do, was it not binding on the Catholics in 1555? If the Pope is only infallible in specific circumstances, that means he must be fallible in other circumstances, and capable of error.
I’m glad we agree on that at least.

Since the Pope is Christ’s Vicar on earth , he cannot make a mistake about the Church’s moral teachings and interpetation of Scripture. \QUOTE]

Since the Pope clearly erred in moral teachings, by publishing a Papal Bull that implemented and condoned persecution of the Jews, does that mean he was not the Pope, or that the infallibility doctrine is false?

I am saddened that Christians, for whom God’s law is hopefully written on their hearts, revert to legalism and semantics to justify their actions. If you remember the message of Jesus’ Gospels, Jesus was particularly upset with the Pharisees for their hypocrisy: they said one thing and did another. Why does that not apply to the Pope? He preached Christian love while he persecuted the Jews. Why is that not the hypocrisy that Jesus hated?

You may, reverting to legalism and semantics, claim that a Papal Bull is not moral teachings, but I struggle to recognise Christian sentiment in that defence. I am not criticising you personally, just your reasoning in this particular instance.

Sola scriptura allows everyone who believes that he /she has the guidance of the Holy Spirit to interpret and act on his/her interpretation without any checks or balances. and as Such it is a very dangerous principle

Actually, not as dangerous as it may appear, and certainly not as dangerous as allowing a Pope to authorise persecution, torture, and murder unchecked, while claiming to have greater access to the Holy Spirit than anyone else.

 

[Janet_S]

Wayne, what’s the history of your Church? Or did your Church just pop out of the pages of the New Testament?

 

[Janet_S]

Protestants who don’t want to deal with the real history of the real Church are always free to start their own church. That way they can claim they are from a pure untainted church–a church that has no complicity in the Crusades, Inquisition, burning of heretics, etc. Members from the pure, untainted (but ahistorical) church can always sit in judgment and criticize the historical Church that actually existed, continuously, for the 2000 years since the coming of Christ. They often forget, though, that this is the Church that spread the Gospel message throughout the world and that has preserved the Bible that they cherish today and now claim as their own. They fail to see themselves as a part of the real historical Church, though they are indebted to it for everything they know about Christ.

I’m not afraid to examine the history of the Catholic Church. I’m not always happy with what I find, but I will examine it honestly. There were many scandals in the past just as there have been scandals in recent times. I wish that weren’t the case, but it is. Christ told us to expect this in in the kingdom of God, (Matthew 13:24-30) so we shouldn’t be too suprised.

As far as “Cum Nimis Absurdum,” you can read about it from the Jewish and Catholic perspectives. The explanation given in the Catholic Encyclopedia :
newadvent.org/cathen/14761a.htm

Looking at the documents of unquestioned authenticity extracted by Stern from the papal Regesta it becomes clear that throughout the later Middle Ages the Jews in almost every emergency turned to the popes as to their natural protectors. . .

The edicts issued at various times for the destruction of copies of the Talmud, the Bull “Cum nimis absurdum” of Paul IV constraining the Jews of Rome to live segregated in a Ghetto and subject to other harassing disabilities, represent rather the prejudices of individual pontiffs than any consistent principle of persecution. Let it also be noted that the influence of the Church has repeatedly been exerted for the protection of pagan races against forcible conversion, and that it has freely tolerated such religious rites amongst savages as were not openly debasing and immoral.

The Jewish perspective can be found here:
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=438&letter=P

The Roman Church does not claim any jurisdiction over persons who have not been baptized; therefore the relations of the popes, as the heads of the Church, to the Jews have been limited to rules regarding the political, commercial, and social conditions under which Jews might reside in Christian states. As sovereigns of the Papal States the popes further had the right to legislate on the status of their Jewish subjects. Finally, voluntary action was occasionally taken by the popes on behalf of the Jews who invoked their aid in times of persecution, seeking their mediation as the highest ecclesiastical authorities. The general principles governing the popes in their treatment of the Jews are practically identical with those laid down in the Justinian Code: (1) to
separate them from social intercourse with Christians as far as possible; (2) to prevent them from exercising any authority over Christians, either in a public (as officials) or a private capacity (as masters or employers); (3) to arrange that the exercise of the Jewish religion should not assume the character of a public function. On the other hand, however, the popes have always condemned, theoretically at least, (1) acts of violence against the Jews, and (2) forcible baptism. . .

You can read “Cum Nimis Absurdum” here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_nimis_absurdum

 

[qui_est_ce]

I did not mention infallibility, I simply pointed out where the Church had erred, demonstrating that it is capable of error. Now, if a Papal Bull is not law, what is it? Is it just a guideline that Catholics can follow if they choose so to do, or not do, was it not binding on the Catholics in 1555?

It is a letter written by a Pope.

If the Pope is only infallible in specific circumstances, that means he must be fallible in other circumstances, and capable of error…

You are confusing the Pope with the Catholic Church.

Since the Pope clearly erred in moral teachings, by publishing a Papal Bull that implemented and condoned persecution of the Jews, does that mean he was not the Pope, or that the infallibility doctrine is false?

Again the confusion.

The Pope is a human being and can commit personal sins (They go to Confession a lot). Infallibility lies with the Church. When the Pope speaks “Ex Cathedra” from the chair of Peter, he is speaking infallibly, that is Altar Spiritus, in the NAME of the Holy Spirit. It’s not about the Pope himself. He does not speak for the Holy Spirit or for the Church when he writes letters (which is what a Bull is).The Pope’s personal behavior has nothing to do with the Infallibility of the Catholic Church.

I am saddened that Christians, for whom God’s law is hopefully written on their hearts, revert to legalism and semantics to justify their actions.

Yes, I am also saddened. Thankfully, I can go to Confession when I sin.

You may, reverting to legalism and semantics, claim that a Papal Bull is not moral teachings, but I struggle to recognise Christian sentiment in that defence. I am not criticising you personally, just your reasoning in this particular instance.

It is you who are reverting to legalism and semantice by twisting Catholic Teaching to prove she is in error.

Actually, not as dangerous as it may appear, and certainly not as dangerous as allowing a Pope to authorise persecution, torture, and murder unchecked, while claiming to have greater access to the Holy Spirit than anyone else.

The Pope does not have any more access to the Holy Spirit than anyone else. It is the Church that has the promise of the Holy Spirit to keep her inerrant in her teachings. No doctrine of the Church is morally in error.

 

[2ndGen]

“Proof that sola scriptura is not true”

“Its” not in The Bible.

 

[WayneTalbot]

It is a letter written by a Pope.You are confusing the Pope with the Catholic Church. Again the confusion.

Yes, I will admit to confusion, and hopefully you can help me out here.
Having browsed the Catholic Encyclopaedia and other sources, I cannot find a description of the import of a Papal Bull. Apparently it can, and has been used for a multitude of purposes over the years. Some of the descriptions use the words Charter, Decree, and Edict. Saying that a Bull is just a personal letter doesn’t tell me much - what I want to understand is the utility and force of the document, which obviously varies.
Do Catholics simply treat a Papal Bull as an interesting communication, but with no binding implications?
Are some binding, and some not, and how would one tell?
Specifically in relation to the Papal Bull by Pope Paul IV in 1555, how would you, as a member of the Catholic Church at the time, have received this communication?
Would you have considered it binding, or would you pick and choose the parts that you thought were maybe fair?
Would the Church have considered that you had sinned if you had been treated by a Jewish doctor, had bought grain from a Jewish merchant, had fraternized with a Jewish person?
Would you have considered that you had sinned, would you feel the need to report that at your next confession?
I am curious to understand the import of such documents, and the implications if one chooses to ignore or not comply with the contents therein.
Your clarification would be much appreciated.

 

[WayneTalbot]

You are confusing the Pope with the Catholic Church.

Again, I admit my confusion, and I will again turn to you for your assistance.
What you wrote about speaking infallibly, ex cathedra, etc, all of that I have been through before, but am none the wiser as to how it works in practice.
How does the Pope decide when he is speaking ex cathedra?
I would assume that he prays about every decision he makes, and prays for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in every document that he writes, every speech that he gives, every Bull that he issues. Yet somehow, he is incapable of error at some times, but not at others.
How does he know which is which, or does he simply accept that when he decides that he is going to speak ex cathedra, he is guaranteed not to make a mistake?
How do you, as Catholics, know which parts of doctrine are Spirit guided and inerrant, and which parts are not. If, for example, you were to say that all Canons fit this description, are you able to trace these back to *ex cathedra *pronouncements, or do you just take it as a matter of faith?
Are the edicts of the various councils, such as Trent, in this inerrant category, and be careful, you will have to know the statements, their history, and whether they have been revoked.
Incidentally, I have studied every piece of logic, Tradition, and Scripture proof-text that I can find on this, but do not find the case compelling, in particular, there seems an absence of evidence that clarifies and authenticates the differentiation between the *ex cathedra *and other pronouncements. Maybe you know of them.
But let us not discuss that here, let us stay with understanding how the Pope knows when he is infallible, and what that means in relation to the Church.
I take it that when he does speak in this way, he can be considered as speaking as the Catholic Church, but when he doesn’t, he is speaking for himself ?
In the context of your quoted statement above, how do you define “The Church”, and please, do not resort to some esoteric description that is difficult to comprehend, but describe the Church in a way that we can dissect for full understanding.
I will admit here to being legalistic, a trait I often accuse others of.
But I believe that it is correct in this context as we are trying to understand authority, which is a different case than when we are trying to understand morals and behaviour.
Any guidance and correction you can provide would be most appreciated. I can assure you that I am not predisposed to any particular outcome, I trust fully in Jesus Christ and have no emotional or intellectual attachment to any church denomination.
I just want to know the truth, and why you believe it to be the truth.

 

[WayneTalbot]

Wayne, what’s the history of your Church? Or did your Church just pop out of the pages of the New Testament?

There is no “my Church”, I do not belong to any defined Christian denomination, but paradoxically, yes, my church did just pop out of the pages of the New Testament, in a metaphorical sense.

Along with all other Christians, I am a member of the church that Jesus founded, the congregation of those who believe on Him.
Along with some other Christians, I am not a member of a specific denomination.
Depending on which part of the world I have been working or living, I have worshipped God with different congregations, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, Uniting Church, evangelicals, and yes, even Catholic.
I have no preference, my aim is to worship, not to practice some ritual.
I have faith and confidence in Jesus Christ, and am confident that the Gospel which Jesus taught, and the recording of His message in Scripture, is sufficient for salvation.
I know that people will ask the well-worn questions, the answers to which there is not universal agreement, but yes, I believe that the more I practice my faith in Jesus Christ, the more He is in me, and the more the Holy Spirit guides me, convicting me any and every time I am wrong, just as I pray.
I accept the sacrament of Baptism, make my confessions directly to God, partake of bread and wine in remembrance of Jesus, and joyously accept, as much as I can, both the trials and bounties that He provides.
I study Scripture, pray with and for other Christians, and for all others, love friends and enemies equally, and love God above all else.
I am confident of salvation, just as Jesus promised, I see no need to doubt His Word: acknowledging always my own failings, I do my best to follow all that is taught in Scripture, and am grateful that by grace through faith I am saved.
It isn’t all that complicated, really.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Sola scriptura allows everyone who believes that he /she has the guidance of the Holy Spirit to interpret and act on his/her interpretation without any checks or balances. and asusch it is
a very dangerous principle

More dangerous than arbitrarily deciding to believe in (place our faith in) the infallibility of men who are sinful? Everyone has faith in someone or something. As for me, I will trust in what God seems to be saying through His written word, and not the traditions of men who claim that they can teach infallibly.

 

[Romulus]

“Proof that sola scriptura is not true”

“Its” not in The Bible.

And it is not “implicit” using verses. Check out my syllogism in #199 proving “All scripture is insufficient” using 2nd Tim verse. From what I have learned about SS, is that it is a doctrine proposes that “All scripture is sufficient”.

 

[WayneTalbot]

Protestants who don’t want to deal with the real history of the real Church are always free to start their own church. That way they can claim they are from a pure untainted church–a church that has no complicity in the Crusades, Inquisition, burning of heretics, etc. Members from the pure, untainted (but ahistorical) church can always sit in judgment and criticize the historical Church that actually existed, continuously, for the 2000 years since the coming of Christ. They often forget, though, that this is the Church that spread the Gospel message throughout the world and that has preserved the Bible that they cherish today and now claim as their own. They fail to see themselves as a part of the real historical Church, though they are indebted to it for everything they know about Christ.

What you say is true, to an extent, though I am not sure that Protestants deny the lineage of Christian churches, maybe some do, some don’t.
Certainly the Catholic Church has existed for 2000 years (approximately), but it is not the only Christian Church that has done so. There were multiple early churches under provincial bishops, and not all chose to accede to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
Nonetheless, churches since the Reformation are, as you say, indebted to the Catholic Church for what they know about Christ, but I disagree as to “everything” they know about Christ.
I don’t think that the Catholic Church can lay claim to ownership of Scripture. Given that multiple provincial churches existed prior to the primacy of Rome, and that some of these churches still exist, it would be fair to say that the Catholic Church, as defined by the Papacy, did not come into existence until about 300 AD.
Is that the right date? I’m not sure that the date matters that much, just the fact that it did happen.
As Scripture predates the Catholic Church, then the Catholic Church cannot claim ownership, nor claim that it is the sole means by which we now know everything we do about Jesus Christ. We get that from Scripture, much more so than from the Catholic Church. This was, after all, much of the basis for the disagreements during the Reformation and since.
Protestants can divorce themselves from previous Church errors, such as the Inquisition, etc, just as Catholics can.
It is interesting that in another post, a Catholic apologist argues that the actions of the Pope are not the actions of the Church, but here you convey the opposite, that the actions described are the actions of the Church, else why would you suggest that Protestant churches cannot divorce themselves from it.
I have been told that I am confused - perhaps you can understand why that is so.

 

[Romulus]

More dangerous than arbitrarily deciding to believe in (place our faith in) the infallibility of men who are sinful?

Yeah I agree if the “men” you speak of are not truly apart of Jesus’ “Pillar of Truth” a.k.a His Church.

Jesus chose men who are sinful to spread his gospel…be leaders of his Church…in fact, one of them was a “Christian Hater”.

Yet…the SPIRIT leads them to the TRUTH…in regards to morals/dogmas…not to what the next lotto numbers are gonna be. It is a mystery…sort of like trying to explain the Trinity.

Everyone has faith in someone or something. As for me, I will trust in what God seems to be saying through His written word, and not the traditions of men who claim that they can teach infallibly.

Notice you said “seems”… Do you really know what God is saying in his written word? We are fallible…we may not clearly understand it all…but the “Pillar of Truth” a.k.a Church knows…even if it has “sinful men in it…like you and me”…again, it is guided by the SPIRIT not to teach error in regards to dogmas/morals. But that is just my faith

Nick, I don’t recall…do you have any feedback in regards to my syllogism in #199. Wayne has given me a lot of good feedback. You know, it is a shame that at carm.org…no protestants has really stuck with me over there in regards to my syllogism and scripture insufficiency.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Romulus]

I noticed a lot of Church and Papacy replies… It is good, but it doesn’t belong on this thread. Yes, it is related…because once the Church and Papacy argument is finalized…then SS either stays or falls…due to the “teaching authority”.

But I’m looking at it as “Proof that sola scriptura is either true or not true” using “deductive reasoning” and scriptural verses.

My 2 cents in regards to this thread.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Yes, I will admit to confusion, and hopefully you can help me out here.
Having browsed the Catholic Encyclopaedia and other sources, I cannot find a description of the import of a Papal Bull. Apparently it can, and has been used for a multitude of purposes over the years. Some of the descriptions use the words Charter, Decree, and Edict. Saying that a Bull is just a personal letter doesn’t tell me much - what I want to understand is the utility and force of the document, which obviously varies.

And there is your answer, some carry more import than others. You could compare it to a Motus, or an encyclica, or an article written by the Pope in the vatican press. It depends on how much weight the Popes and the bishops put on it, which seems not much. Most Catholics don’t know anything about this Bull, because it has no importance to Catholic Theology. The ban on artificial birth control, for example is not a doctrine of the Church , BUT, in the bigger framework of Catholic Teaching, it is considered sinful. Much has been written and debated since Humnae Vitae. It is an important issue. The ban on Abortion is not a Doctrine, it’s understood that it is wrong in the framework of Catholic Church teaching.

Do Catholics simply treat a Papal Bull as an interesting communication, but with no binding implications?
Are some binding, and some not, and how would one tell?
Specifically in relation to the Papal Bull by Pope Paul IV in 1555, how would you, as a member of the Catholic Church at the time, have received this communication?
Would you have considered it binding, or would you pick and choose the parts that you thought were maybe fair
Would the Church have considered that you had sinned if you had been treated by a Jewish doctor, had bought grain from a Jewish merchant, had fraternized with a Jewish person?
Would you have considered that you had sinned, would you feel the need to report that at your next confession?
I am curious to understand the import of such documents, and the implications if one chooses to ignore or not comply with the contents therein.
Your clarification would be much appreciated.

A bull is a a seal on a letter. In 1555, I probably would never have heard of it, I wouldn’t be able to read,. Communications to peasants, who were 95% of the population, was poor. I probably would only know about the doctrines of the Church, and not understand much more. Clergy were inordinatley decimated by the Black Death due to their ministering to the sick, so there were a lot of poorly educated clergy. There were likey liturgical abuses due to unintential ignorance. I doubt I would be seeing a doctor in the first place.

Regarding Jews, remember, it was sinful for them to fraternize with Gentiles. They kept to themselves. Human Dignity is an evolving concept. Many Jews today eat pork, and intermarriage today is much more common than it was even 100 years ago.

Civilization as it was known in the Roman times was wiped out by Barbarians. The light of Roman civilzation went out and the Dark Ages began. The Catholic Church at the time had the only structure in place that could effect some order. The Church kept civilzation alive in her monastaries and in Rome.

I think you are placing to much importance a this Bull, it has nothing to do with the Church’s doctrines and beliefs. It is the writing of one man; this man is not a Church Doctor/Father (as in St. Ambrose, St. Augustine) whose writings greatly influenced the Church’s understanding of Scripture and Christ’s teachings. Saul persecuted Christians, he was instrumental in the martyrdom of St. Stephan, the first martyr, whose feast we celebrate today. St. Peter denied Jesus after he accepted Jesus as his “personal savior.” John 6:6xxsomething

 

[2ndGen]

More dangerous than arbitrarily deciding to believe in (place our faith in) the infallibility of men who are sinful? Everyone has faith in someone or something. As for me, I will trust in what God seems to be saying through His written word, and not the traditions of men who claim that they can teach infallibly.

“Traditions of men”?

Isn’t “Sola Scriptura” taught “traditionally”?
It’s not a scriptural doctrine since no where in scripture does it teach that the Bible alone is sufficient for doctrine.

Besides that, we are taught to hold fast to “traditions” by Paul.

And finally, a Priest is distinguished from an ordinary man. He is set apart from men. When Jesus healed a man, He told that man to tell no man, but to go show himself to a Priest and to do what said Priest prescribed to him to do.

There’s a big difference from what a Priest teaches and what a secular man teaches according to Jesus Himself. After all, Jesus was Himself a Priest. And man at the same time.

Paul? Man. Peter? Man. So if we’re not to listen to what any man teaches, then you’d have to completely throw awa the doctrine of Sola Scriptura which was after all created in the 16th Century by a (drumroll please…); man.

(That is, unless you can show me in scritpure where Jesus taught that we are to get our spiritual revelation from a book alone)

He said that we live by The Word of God.
Today, some translate this as a “book”, but The Word of God is not written on stone or on papyrus…it is written on a man’s heart (where no other man can corrupt it). Therefore, if a man’s faith is corrupted or corruptable, it is not because of an outside source, but because he has no discernment within himsel to recognize The Word of God.

The Bible itselfis simply a sacramental…an impliment used in worship. Once one puts their faith in an inanimate object, then they surrender their faith to the whims of the author of that particular book.

Take the NIV Bible…it is published by the same company that publishes The Satanic Bible. Can any true Christian honestly trust a bible version that is published by the same corporation that publishes The Satanic Bible?

Of course, this leads to the argument of “which” is the best translation to which I answer…the traslation in your “heart”. A physical visible object (a book) only acts as a reference. Men who are right with God recognize The Word of God when they see it because it is reflected in their hearts. But the man who’s reasons for wanting to learn scripture are not of a holy intent will not have the scriptures opened up to him.

Any literate person could read the Bible, but only the holy man can understand it as God reveals His Word to said man (be they Catholic, Protestant, non-Denominationalist, whatever.

The fact is, Sola Scriptura doesn’t exist “in” the Bible,
therefore, it cancels itself out.

 

[qui_est_ce]

What you say is true, to an extent, though I am not sure that Protestants deny the lineage of Christian churches, maybe some do, some don’t.
Certainly the Catholic Church has existed for 2000 years (approximately), but it is not the only Christian Church that has done so. There were multiple early churches under provincial bishops, and not all chose to accede to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

if they were not with Rome, they were considered heretical.

Nonetheless, churches since the Reformation are, as you say, indebted to the Catholic Church for what they know about Christ, but I disagree as to “everything” they know about Christ.
I don’t think that the Catholic Church can lay claim to ownership of Scripture. Given that multiple provincial churches existed prior to the primacy of Rome, and that some of these churches still exist, it would be fair to say that the Catholic Church, as defined by the Papacy, did not come into existence until about 300 AD.
Is that the right date? I’m not sure that the date matters that much, just the fact that it did happen.

incorrect, the birthday of the Catholic Church is Pentecost. approx 30 AD.

As Scripture predates the Catholic Church, then the Catholic Church cannot claim ownership, nor claim that it is the sole means by which we now know everything we do about Jesus
Christ. We get that from Scripture, much more so than from the Catholic Church.

This is incorrect, Church came first (Penecost). Bible was compiled by Catholic Church. The first “book” was compiled in a cohesive by St. Jerome (the Latin Vulgate) under the direction of Pope St. Damasius I, begun in 382.Even then there was debate between St. Jerome and the Pope as to which books to include.

This was, after all, much of the basis for the disagreements during the Reformation and since.

What was disputed?

Protestants can divorce themselves from previous Church errors, such as the Inquisition, etc, just as Catholics can.

?? To which inquistion are you referring? What was the problem with inquisition? Oops, off topic.

``Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;
even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church’’ Ignatius of Antioch, 1st c. A.D