Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura

[guanophore]

You are the one reading a succession into the passage. There is nothing about succession in the passage, Jesus is just talking to Peter.

You are right. In that passage, there is no reference to succession. It is later that Peter and the Apostles, under the guidance of the HS, begin succession. How do you know God did not give this instruction to them during the 40 days after His resurrection?

 

[guanophore]

I still await an answer as to what he meant, then, when he said “we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.” Aquinas specifically excludes oral tradition in this quote. It’s pretty black and white, and I am not hearing any convincing arguments to the contrary.

You seem to be suffering from the misconception that there is some disconnect between the oral and written sacred traditions. this is not the case. The oral tradition gives us a framework in which to understand what is written. It is impossible for them to contradict one another, as they come from the same Source.

If you think He does not accept Apostolic Tradition, you are mistaken. Taking this one passage out of the context of his writings can be misleading. He was Catholic, and therefore, embraces Sacred Tradition. This is possible because noon of it fails to tell of those things that are in writing.

So you say, but in order to add intellectual rigor to your claim, you must provide a reasonable explanation as to why Aquinas didn’t really mean to say what he did.

Oh, he meant what He said, alright. He does not mean what YOU think he said.

After all, if the successors to the apostles and prophets are infallible, why wouldn’t we believe them regardless of whether they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings? It is a salient question to which no real answer has yet been provided.

Clearly you do not understand the gift of infallibility.

The Church has never claimed that the successors of the Apostles are infallible.

She does not claim that the Apostles are infallible either.

 

[guanophore]

Well, it is called the ROMAN Catholic Church. The pope is called a pontiff. Yes, it is Roman in many ways.

This was a title conferred upon the Latin Rite by her enemies.

Pontiff is a political title that was conferred upon the Latin Patriarch when the Empire left Rome and moved to Constantinople.

Of course the Latin Rite is “Roman”.

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

Also, please show me where Christ specifically sent his apostles to Rome. He did send them to all nations, but nowhere does He specifically send them to Rome.

The prophet Agabus told Peter he would be arrested and taken where he did not want to go. History shows that he went to Rome.

Jesus specifically tells Paul He is sending him to Rome. Why would that be a problem for you?

I would contend that Luther stated that it was by grace alone, through faith alone because of Christ alone, because he was specifically excluding words the RCC had added.

Really? What words were those?

The RCC, BTW, also says that we are saved by grace alone.

Since we are in agreement on this, what words do you think were “added”?

So, if you are going to accuse Luther of this sin, you will also have to accuse the RCC of the same.

Luther rebelled against the authority appointed by Christ to shepherd His flock.

Only God is qualified to judge any of us, Luther included.

Among those Protestants who practice exegesis, there is agreement on the fundamentals of the faith.

Horse Hockey.

This was demonstrated in the document entitled The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration, which was signed by Protestants from many different denominations in 1999. The signers of the declaration might disagree on non-essential doctrines, but they all agree on what the Bible says about the essentials.

And who makes the list of which are “essential doctrines”. Like Sola Scriptura, this is another extrabiblical doctrine.

 

[Boxcar]

Let us seeTradition - means handed down by God to man esp. in the first century even today in hermeneutics, (interpretation of scripture)there is not a good man left noone prays to God.

Lots of smoke being blown, but no Scriptures cited - because there aren’t any. 1 Tim 3:15 says “the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” The Church is the pillar and the bulwark of the truth, not Scripture alone (which is a creation of the Church, by the way). Scripture - Sacred Tradition - The Magisterium of the Church - those are the three foundations of the one true faith.

 

[guanophore]

I hate to belabor the point, but according to Aquinas, if the Church teaches something that is not in the Bible, then we shouldn’t believe it (only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings). Notice the word only: “We believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.”

I will concede that this shouldn’t be taken as excluding concepts that are clearly conveyed, though not explicitly stated, in Scripture (such as the Trinity).

If you can make this concession,then you should have no problem with any Catholic Teaching, as all of them are in that same category.

 

[guanophore]

I was responding to those Catholics who make the claim that the Catholic Church created the New Testament. Newton did not create gravity. He simply recognized it for what it was. The same is true with the Church and the canon. I would caution against statements which have the appearance of placing too much confidence in man. I would rather explicitly attribute it all to God. If we do not make this distinction clearly, the object of our faith (God) is displaced (by confidence in man), whether formally or just in practice.

In this case, God worked through man. Men, inspired by God, spoke from the HS. These were all Catholic men. The Scriptures are called “theopneustos” (God breathed)… God breathed through Catholics. This guidance continued in the preservation, replication, canonization and promulgation of the Bible. Although gravity exists outside of Newton, the Bible does NOT exist apart from the Church.

I agree with your point that the Church recognized (by His grace) what He had done.

Of course YOU would rather attribute it all explicitly to God because it was done by the authority that He gave to the Catholic Church - the authority you repudiate.

Recognizing God’s authority does not equate to putting confidence in man. The Church is infallible because God makes it so, not because of anything man does.

 

[guanophore]

By non-essential, I mean to say that our salvation does not depend on our understanding of that particular passage.

By what authority to you determine which part can be ignored?

, So, for example, there is a lot of symbology employed by the minor prophets. If I, as a Christian, am unable to understand what it all means, it does not condemn me to Hell.

How do you know that? We have all been condemned by default. If you reject the faith that was preached by the Apostles, which includes all the prophets, then how can you be sure you have saving faith?

On the other hand, if I cannot grasp the gospel message that is another matter. The gospel message, by the way, is clearly laid out in Scripture.

There is no distinction between them. The Gospel includes all of God’s revelation that came before. I agree, it is clearly laid out in scripture that Jesus committed this gospel in full to His Apostles, and that it was whole and entire before any word of the NT was ever writtten.

You receive it, but how do you correctly appropriate it? By holding up the Magisterium, the RCC just provides one more (supposedly) infallible source (the Bible being the other).

We receive it just like the faithful always have, at the feet of the Apostles. We appropriate it by devoting ourselves to their teachings and prayers.

The Bible cannot be infallible.

The argument advanced as to why the Magisterium is needed is that it provides correct interpretation of the Scriptures. However, if our appropriation of the information is the weak link in the chain, then adding infallible sources does not really solve the problem.

Well, speak for yourself. I believe that God is able to do what He said He would do, which is to lead the Church into All Truth.

You seem to take a low view of the Holy Spirit. You imply that He is impotent without the agency of the Magisterium. I believe we should have a bit more confidence in the Holy Spirit than that.

Not at all. In fact, how powerful is He,that He can make such perfection come through such unworthy vessels! Of course God could have decided to have the Sacred Scrolls drop out of heaven if He wished. He chose, instead, to work through Catholics.

 

[guanophore]

If the Holy Spirit continues to guide the apostolic successors *in the same way *He guided the apostles writing the New Testament, then why has the canon been closed?

Because that is what the HS led them to do ?

There is one Deposit of Faith that was committed to the Church. Public revelation ended with the death of the last Apsostle.

I would argue the canon has been closed because only those writings of the apostles are, in fact, infallible.

Writings are incapable of action, and therefore, cannot be fallible or infallible.

It seems to me the early Church fathers were careful to distinguish between their own authority and that of the Apostles.

As were the Apostles careful to distinguish what came from themselves, and what came from God.

Polycarp: "Wherefore, forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning"

What is it about the authority of what was handed down that you don’t accept? This is the paradosis,the Sacred Deposit of the Holy faith.

Clement I: "Ye are fond of contention, brethren, and full of zeal about things which do not pertain to salvation. Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them."

If you are seeking to set the scriptures against the authority appointed by Christ, you are engaged in a vain work. The Holy Scriptures, produced by , for, and about the Catholic Church, are entirely consistent with the Sacred Tradition that produced them.

 

[guanophore]

In response, I would like to quote from another author, Norman Geisler. In response to Akin's challenge (actually, not to Akin specifically, but to the challenge in general) Geisler writes:

"…the Bible, like any normal human communication, needs no interpretive framework superimposed on it. All it needs is good exegesis, that is, reading the meaning out of it that the author put into it…In other words, the Bible simply needs historical-grammatical exegesis…

This is a ridiculous statement, since historical -grammatical exegesis is an interpretive framework.
’
seascale;6377610:

"Further…even if outside sources are used as an aid in understanding (such as understanding words and cultural setting), these need not be infallible to be helpful. Using such sources is a daily and common practice by both laypersons and scholars. It is sufficient for everyday life.

By whose authority does Geisler make this pronouncement?

The Apostles taught that the Scriptures needed to be understood according to the Revelation that Jesus had given to them.

Sure, it is a daily and common practice today to ignore this Revelation, but that does not make it right.

It is used to understand road signs, news reports, and books. Housewives, courts, and judges employ it. There is nothing special, uncommon, or infallible about it. Yet it is sufficient for life and death matters. It provides an adequate and sufficient means for discovering truth without either claiming to be or being infallible.

Basically, what Geisler is saying is that God’s revelation of HImself to the Apostles is unnecesary. There was really no point in Him spending three years with them to explain everything,

He is also saying that eternal matters of the Kingdom of God are equal to the mundane matters of daily human life.

Why then is an infallible guide (other than the Holy Spirit) needed when approaching Scripture? The fact is there is no such need.

I agree. One does not need to accept any revelation that God has provided. One has the choice to set oneself up as the standard over God. He has created us with this freedom.

Indeed, historically, we can compare the results of this *sola Scriptura*

method with the results of the early Fathers, and the results are the same on all the basic doctrines of the Christian Church.

Who determines what are “basic doctrines”? If this statement is true, why is there not unity among Sola Scripturists?

This should be no surprise because the commonsense, everyday (historical-grammatical) method is the same one used by the early Fathers when they derived the essential doctrines of the faith from Holy Scripture."

This is another false statement, as evidenced by your own quote from Polycarp. The faith was received via the Apostolic Succession, not “derived” from Scripture. Jesus never intended for the Church to be “derived from Scripture”. If He had, He would have written
Scripture instead of founding a Church! Imagine how much He would have been able to get written, had He not been pre-occupied with those dense Apostles!

 

[inkaneer]

That is the Catholic position. Thus, all those arguments made by Catholics in this thread and others on accountability trying to justify that The Catholic Church is correct BECAUSE it has Apostolic Succession is false. Which has been my point; thanks for agreeing with me and verifying my point correct.

Don’t be so confident. First of all you apparently have a flawed idea of what Apostolic Succession is and what it is not. It is not Apostolic Succession per se that makes the Catholic Church infallible in its teaching. The Orthodox Church has Apostolic Succession but is not infallible in its teaching. Apostolic Succession is the pedigree of the Church, the lineage of leaders of the Church who we call bishops. But not all bishops are infallible in their teaching for individual bishops are infallible only in council and then only when in communion with the pope. Only the Pope is individually infallible under certain conditions. I believe I pointed out previously that Nestorius was the bishop of Constantinople and personally responsible for the heresy of Nestorianism. Infallibility is not Apostolic Succession nor does Apostolic Succession mean infallibility.

What makes Apostolic Succession important is that it is the vehicle through which the authority of the Church is passed to succeeding generations. That authority includes the authority to ordain men to the diaconate, priesthood and episcopiscy; authority to administer sacraments; authority to govern the church; as well as the authority to teach. However, the authority to teach does not mean that the teaching will be infallible as evidenced by the example of Nestorius. So do not confuse the two.

 

[inkaneer]

I am reposting this earlier post of mine. The reason is simple. Protestants come here and pose questions and allegations of Catholics and demand that we show evidence to support the teachings of Catholicism. Now I am quite willing to give an account of the belief that is within me as the scripture states but if protestants are christians as they claim then they too should be willing to give evidence to support their beliefs. So again I ask the protestants here. Where is the scriptural support that says that only scripture is authoritative [sola scriptura]? Especially when 2 Thess 2:15 directly contradicts it.

But do you realize that this allegation by protestants contradicts scripture? And not just one verse either. Now Jesus said he would establish a church. Which one? Well none of the protestant denominations claims a 2,000 year history and only the Catholic Church claims and presents proof that it does so logic would say that church established by Jesus was the Catholic church. Now did that church go astray around the time of Constantine as seascale and other protestants allege. I say it did not and I would like seascale or any protestant to explain to us Catholics how the church established by Jesus could possibly teach false doctrine in light of scriptiure verses to the contrary. First, Scripture records that Jesus said His church would prevail over the forces of hell. But if that church taught false doctrine as protestants allege then hell prevails, not the church. Second, Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would lead the church into all truth. For the church to teach false doctrine as protestants allege means that either Jesus lied or the Holy Spirit was not doing His job. Third, the Scriptures record that Jesus said He would remain with His church until the end of the Age. Protestants would like to believe that Jesus just sat around twittling His thumbs and nonchalantly watched His church lapse into error AND DID NOTHING!!! Now just how preposturous can anyone claiming to be sola scripturists get to say that Jesus lied and Holy Scripture was in error. Now ,in light of these contradictions to the Holy Scriptures alleged by protestants I think they need to defend their allegations. Let’s see the evidentiary proof . . .if they have it.

 

[twb1621]

I hate to belabor the point, but according to Aquinas, if the Church teaches something that is not in the Bible, then we shouldn’t believe it (only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings). Notice the word only: “We believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.”

I will concede that this shouldn’t be taken as excluding concepts that are clearly conveyed, though not explicitly stated, in Scripture (such as the Trinity).

**You or anyone who relies solely on a excerpt taken from a Doctor of the Catholic church in an attempt to use it against the Catholic Faith without referring to the context of which he or she writes or without referencing that writing with the majority of the same author’s writings, is doing a great injustice to your self or them self. **

It is clear you have quoted from a quote but I seriously and sadly doubt you have read the text that this interpretation was made from. The text itself in this volume relates to the existence of God and refers to nature and creation. It has been seriously separated from everything relevant to it but lets you and I be honest; if anyone is going to attempt to call on the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, he is directly giving credence to his writings in general in which case must give credence to the beliefs the writings are based upon. In relating to one subject, man can not say a person is intelligent about that subject while at that same time saying he is ignorant about that subject. That is an expression of selective opinion which is the practice of Sola Scriptura.

**“The Apostles, led by the inward stirring of the Holy Ghost, handed down to the churches certain instructions which they did not leave in writing, but which have been ordained in accordance with the observance of the Church as practiced by the faithful as time went on. Therefore the Apostle says: ‘STAND FAST, AND HOLD THE TRADITIONS WHICH YOU HAVE LEARNED, WHETHER BY WORD’ – that is by word of mouth – ‘OR BY OUR EPISTLE’ – that is by word put into writing. **from Summa Theologica]”

"The formal object of faith is Primary Truth as manifested in Holy Scripture and in the teaching of the Church which proceeds from the Primary Truth. hence, he who does not embrace the teaching of the Church as a divine and infallible law does not possess the habit of faith’ " [from Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 5, a. 3]

In the Summa Theologica, Saint Thomas clearly states the fact that some things that are essential to the faith concerning the Sacraments are not found in Sacred Scripture;
“But those things that are essential to the sacrament, are instituted by Christ Himself, Who is God and man. And though they are not all handed down by the Scriptures, yet the Church holds them from the intimate tradition of the apostles, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Corinthians 11:34): “The rest I will set in order when I come.”(Summa Theologica III, Question 64, article 2)

There are several other texts we can cite from Aquinas that affirm his adherence to Sacred Tradition. Another example regarding the use of sacred images is taken once again from the Summa;
“The Apostles, led by the inward instinct of the Holy Ghost, handed down to the churches certain instructions which they did not put in writing, but which have been ordained, in accordance with the observance of the Church as practiced by the faithful as time went on. Wherefore the Apostle says (2 Thessalonians 2:14): “Stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word”–that is by word of mouth–“or by our epistle”–that is by word put into writing. Among these traditions is the worship of Christ’s image. Wherefore it is said that Blessed Luke painted the image of Christ, which is in Rome.” (Summa Theologica III, Question 25, Article3 ) Saint Thomas here holds up the Church’s doctrinal teaching by the use of Sacred Tradition, and not Sacred Scripture in this particular case. There are some who try to make this statement apply only to church practice and have claimed that it is not doctrinal in nature.

It is a Catholic theological practice to measure our faith by Sacred Scripture, and Catholic teaching tells us that nothing can oppose the Scriptures. Saint Thomas expressed this theological premise many times in his writings, yet never to the exclusion or divorcing of the living apostolic Tradition from which they proceeded from. He firmly, to his death remained faithful to the Church, Tradition, and the papacy.

http://www.catholicchampion.com/page67/page67.html

www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc.htm

 

[twb1621]

To; AmericanJosiah

As you have not responded earlier to my post, I will repost some of it again;

You raised the question elsewhere “where did Jesus say anything about the Catholic Church” but such questions are expressions of desperation IMO. Jesus sent His apostles to spread the Gospel to all nations. This meaning throughout the world, Universally. Jesus had no reason to name His Church (the unified body of His faithful) like some business for advertising, He knew what He wanted to be proclaimed, knew the proclamation was the Truth and sent the Apostles and others to do just that. As you should and probably do know, the term Christians was a label attached to the followers of Christ in Antioch by those who recognized their faith. The Faithful body of Christ was later more widely labeled the “Universal’ Church or “Catholic” Church, again by outsiders. The Church merely maintained itself through this recognition after be recognized as this for centuries so this issue is baseless.

Did Jesus establish a body of Faithful…yes. Is a body of Faithful also a Church…yes. Is there unbroken lineage of the teachings of Christ in the Catholic Church…yes. And is there scriptural support for the establishment of a Hierarchy of the Church Jesus founded and established through His Apostles… absolutely.

Now as far as Sola Scriptura is concerned; we know scripture tells us Jesus made a covenant to never abandon His Church, that she would never fall and that she would always be guided by the Holy Spirit until His return; Hence the requirment for apostolic succession. We also know according to scripture that in all things Jesus maintains primacy and that by the Father’s will, all things He shall reconcile to Himself. He even went as far as to warn us of the deceit and corruption that would arise at times both from outside and within His Church including the distortion of His Word and the deception of the many, yet asks for perseverance.

Based on the principles of sola scriptura, who has in the past or does possess the righteousness to question the commitment and ability of our Lord to oversee the Church He founded with His blood, and so love her in her devotion and purge her of her corruption as, how and when He determines appropriate to Himself?

Has Our Lord not always had the authority to reconcile all things in heaven and on earth to Himself according to His Word and our Father in Heaven? Does man know better than God and can man do better than God overseeing His own Church for man to believe his own intervention is required to “reestablish” and modify church precepts? Can any man explain how the existence of so many “Christian” faiths is not a testament to man’s weakness of faith and trust in our Savior’s abilities to oversee His Church of which He has always been the High Priest?

No where in Scripture does it say the Church Jesus founded would end, become corrupt and fail or be reestablished or revised at any time or by any man before His return. Just the opposite is true. God proclaims through scripture everything but these things will occur. Yet many have been mislead into accepting the personal beliefs and disbeliefs of individual men and women who did not have the faith or knowledge to accept the complete teachings of our Lord, establishing their own faiths through their adopted beliefs based on individual interpretations.

If one cannot provide justifiable answers to these questions perhaps further thought into the issues raised would be in order.

The final question; if in fact the Catholic Church was not the true Church founded by Jesus as some were lead to believe, one would have to know which Faith was the True Faith. After all, there must be one (and only one) because the Bible attests to it and to the fact it must be visible, obvious, and is of only “one God, one faith, one body and one baptism”… So which one was established by Jesus through the Apostles and their successors and has the lineage in the teachings of scripture since His ministry without interruption as Jesus’ covenant attests AND has all the Characteristics to identify it Biblically?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah,
By looking to the Church as an authentic and reliable witness to the canon, are you not violating the principle of sola scriptura?

1. I don’t.
2. It’s moot to the discussion at hand.
3. Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very soul? Do you thus think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what is taught as such? Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine? IF you answer 'yes" to those questions, then The Catholic Church is accountable for the doctrines it teaches, no less than any other teacher, and the question then becomes WHAT is the most sound norma normans for the norming of those doctrines?

Raymond Brown makes a very perceptive statement in his NT INTRO BOOK on page 31

“Two proposed criteria for what Scripture teaches authoritatively reflect divisions in Western Christianity since the Reformation. One is that the Spirit guides the individual reader of the Bible to religious and theological truth, i.e., “private interpretation” of the Bible. The other is that the Spirit supplies guidance through church teaching. Each criterion has difficulties. Private interpretation is logically paralyzed when two who claim to have the Spirit disagree. Not every Spirit is from God (1 John 4:1-3), but how does one know which spirit is? Moreover, at least in the mainline churches which emerged from the Reformation, church tradition of various kinds (e.g., creeds, confessions of faith) has had a role, explicit or implicit, in guiding private interpretation.”

Dr. Brown is simply wrong.

1. His first point about hermeneutics is moot to this discussion. His rebuke of self designating self as the sole, authoritative and unaccountable interpreter is odd (and noteworthy) since there is only ONE in all of Christiandom that does that he is rebuking - and that one is The Catholic Church. As The Catholic Church insists in The Catechism of The Catholic Church as written by The Catholic Church, The Catholic Church designates ONE authoritative interpreter of Scripture and Tradition, and that ONE is itself. Alone. CCC 85, etc.
2. His second point is also moot since it deals with arbitration. The discussion here is whether teachers of doctrine are accountable for what is taught, and if so, what is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for that norming. But by self (CC) designating self (CC) as the SOLE arbiter for the determination of the correctness of self - made entirely and absolutely moot since self alone (CC) declares self alone (CC) to be INCAPABLE of being wrong.
3. The only correct things he mentions are as follows:
   A. How does one know if that one is correctly following the Spirit? Ah, Brown’s Protestant past is shining through, THAT is related to the issue of this thread!
   B. Yes, Protestants also embrace Tradition in hermeneutics, and if this thread was about hermeneutics, I’d pursue his point there.

.

 

[inkaneer]

Originally Posted by seascale
"I hate to belabor the point, but according to Aquinas, if the Church teaches something that is not in the Bible, then we shouldn’t believe it (only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings). Notice the word only: “We believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.”

I will concede that this shouldn’t be taken as excluding concepts that are clearly conveyed, though not explicitly stated, in Scripture (such as the Trinity)."

Well let’s do belabor the point. Two things are wrong with your position. First, your position is based on the premise that the successors of the Apostles taught something that was not in scripture. You do add, as a concession and to cover some of your own beliefs, that concepts can be conveyed but not specifically stated in scripture such as the Trinity. I disagree and request you provide evidence to support this ludicrous allegation. Take any Catholic teaching and look at the footnotes to that teaching. There you will find your evidence that this teaching is rooted in what the Apostles left in their writings. Take the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary for example. This is contained in the Papal document entitled, Munificentissimus Deus It is too long to be cut and pasted here but insert the name into a search engine. Go to the end of the article and see the references both scripture and otherwise. Again this doctrine, like that of the Trinity, is not “explicitedly stated” But like the Doctrine of the Trinity it is left to the church to formally define that which is given to us in the writings of the Apostles.

Second, and I will grant you this, there is one thing taught by the church that is not contained in scripture. Do you know what that is? It is the canon of scripture or what is scripture. Unfortunately the apostles left us no inspired Table of Contents. Scripture does not tell us which books are inspired. Oh me, Oh my, pray tell, what is the church to do? If the church did not have authority independant of the scriptures then the entire biblical canon of the christian world, to include the entire number of Bible thumping protestant denomoinations, is nothing more than a mere tradition of man. Previously I requested that protestants, any protestant really, provide the evidentiary proof that the Epistle to Philemon was an inspired writing. Not one of the protestants here has even attempted to do so. This is typical of protestants; they want to make allegations and accuse the Catholic Church of everything and anything but they are unwilling to provide any proof of their beliefs. Instead we get more and more allegations piled ontop or prior allegations. We get protestant double speak such as sola scriptura is not a doctrine it is a “praxis”. As if that really makes a difference. So who is wrong here, Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic Church or seascale?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

So, what is YOUR answer to the questions:

Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you think that the teachers of such doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such?
Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?

IF you answer yes to the above questions, then The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches as doctrine - no less than any and all others. And you’ve just embraced that The Catholic Church is subject to the same norming as all others. The question then becomes WHAT is the most sound norma normans among us for the norming of those doctrines among us (the issue of this thread)?

.

The CC has a responsibility to God to proclaim His Truth

Then you disagree with The Catholic Church that ALL teachers are fully and wholly accountable for the doctrine taught right here, right now - and not just before God. It has a long, long, long history of insisting on full accountability of ALL teachers - never hesitating to rebuke, excommunicate, occasionally even dispatch ahead of schedule to the appointed afterlife smelling like smoke - all to REJECT the idea that teachers are accountable only to God. So, does it owe an apology to all it has rebuked, corrected, excommunicated and executed? Or is it right to embrace accountability for teachers here and now and not just before God?

A dictator can exempt “self”

As any “can.” It’s another question whether such is a praxis that should be defended, and another issue whether that means that self is infallible/unaccountable.

But if The Catholic Church did not write The Catholic Catechism where The Catholic Church is declared to be incapable of error and whatever it says is just to be accepted with docility, then what did?

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

It is not Apostolic Succession that makes the Catholic Church infallible in its teaching.

What makes Apostolic Succession important is that it is the vehicle through which the authority of the Church is passed to succeeding generations. That authority includes the authority to ordain men to the diaconate, priesthood and episcopiscy; authority to administer sacraments; authority to govern the church; as well as the authority to teach. However, the authority to teach does not mean that the teaching will be infallible as evidenced by the example of Nestorius. So do not confuse the two.

Thank you for your continued agreement with me on this point.
Tell that to the Catholics here who disagree with you.

So, let’s return to the issue here.

Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you think that the teachers of such doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such?
Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?

IF you answer yes to the above questions, then The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches as doctrine - no less than any and all others. And you’ve just embraced that The Catholic Church is subject to the same norming as all others. The question then becomes WHAT is the most sound norma normans among us for the norming of those doctrines among us (the issue of this thread)?

Thank you!

Pax

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

You raised the question elsewhere “where did Jesus say anything about the Catholic Church”

It has been a common Catholic apologetic here that The Catholic Church alone may exempt The Catholic Church alone from accountability and norming because JESUS SAID that The Catholic Church alone is (well, there is a long chain of things claimed, often of no relevance to accountability). Well, then there is one unavoidable and absolutely mandated question: WHERE? So far, none has been able to quote a single verse to support that claim that Jesus promised/authorized/exempted The Catholic Church. Specifically, particularly, exclusively, perpetually.

As you should and probably do know, the term Christians was a label attached to the followers of Christ in Antioch by those who recognized their faith. The Faithful body of Christ was later more widely labeled the “Universal’ Church or “Catholic” Church, again by outsiders.

All this seems moot to whether Jesus specifically, particularly and exclusively made all the claims and exceptions herein noted by Catholics specifically to The Catholic Church.

Actually, they called themselves “Christians.”

LATER, some who where neither Jesus or any Apostle, began to use the ADJECTIVE “catholic” (and also “orthodox”) to apply to the corpus of Christians. Protestants still do. BTW, it’s a grammatical mistake to capitolize an adjective, not that I should be talking too much about grammar!

Now as far as Sola Scriptura is concerned; we know scripture tells us Jesus made a covenant to never abandon His Church, that she would never fall and that she would always be guided by the Holy Spirit until His return; Hence the requirment for apostolic succession.

1. Apostolic Succession, even if true and even if The Catholic Church could verify such, is moot to our discussion of accountability and infalliblity.
2. Jesus made promises, although not to The Catholic Church. He never promised or authorized it for anything, about anything, concerning anything, for anything, at any time, about any matter, in any regard. He never even just mentioned it in passing about nothing at all. Strange, don’t you think, if it was to be for all perpetuity, the infallible, unaccountable, mouth of God? The sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter, and all must accept whatever it and it alone says “with docility?”
3. Yes, we all agree that God promised to teach and lead. And yes, I think there is a consensus that God will alway teach and lead inerrantly. But here’s where you make an amazing and entirely illogical and unbiblical leap: ERGO, The Catholic Church alone is an infallible STUDENT and FOLLOWER. Where did Jesus say that? You seem to have Teacher and students mixed up, you seem to be confusing Leader with followers. Have you read at least the first 3 chapters of the Bible? IF so, then you know that even in a perfect world, under perfect conditions, even among sinless students and followers, your premise is baseless. God was an inerrant Teacher and Leader - and yet 100% of the objects of such were FALLIBLE students and followers, and yes, God DID hold them accountable. If you will recall your Sunday School days, God ALWAYS inerrantly taught and lead but recall if God’s people ERGO were infallible/unaccountable students and followers?

He even went as far as to warn us of the deceit and corruption that would arise at times both from outside and within His Church including the distortion of His Word and the deception of the many

And yet the LDS, and all the cults (all that reject Sola Scriptura) insists that there is one INCAPABLE of such, one that is infallible/unaccountable, one that is exempt from norming - and it’s always self. Read your Catechism # 87.

No where in Scripture does it say the Church Jesus founded would end, become corrupt and fail or be reestablished or revised at any time or by any man before His return. Just the opposite is true

Jesus never so much as even mentioned The Catholic Church. Nowhere does He state that it and it itself alone, exclusively, particularly, is or ever would be infallible, unaccountable, exempt from norming, and whatever IT and it itself alone says is just to be accepted “with docility.”

Jesus warned of false teachers. Jesus embraces accountability. 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14.

IF you are deserting The Catholic Church and insisting that error CAN arise but EVENTUALLY before His return be corrected (NOT a Catholic view, it’s actually the Mormon view), then you embrace that it should be accountable.

.

 

[inkaneer]

Thank you for your continued agreement with me on this point.
Tell that to the Catholics here who disagree with you…

Not so fast, I do not agree with you. Unlike you, I believe the church IS infallible in its teachings. But it is not solely because of Apostolic Succession per se.

So, let’s return to the issue here.
Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you think that the teachers of such doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such? Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?

IF you answer yes to the above questions, then The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches as doctrine - no less than any and all others. And you’ve just embraced that The Catholic Church is subject to the same norming as all others. The question then becomes WHAT is the most sound norma normans among us for the norming of those doctrines among us (the issue of this thread)?
Thank you!
Pax

.

Not so fast, pal. If the Church is accountable then it is accountable to God alone. It is not accountable to you nor I. Jesus told the crowd that the Pharisees, who He called on a number of occasions a “brood of Vipers”, had authority because they sat on “Moses’ seat” therefore the crowd was to do what the Pharisees told them to do but not do what the Pharisees did. The Pharisees were not accountable to the crowd. But they were accountable to God. In addition, it is also incumbent to say that because of the promises made by Christ to His Church, namely, that it would be led into all truth by the Spirit of Truth and that hell would not prevail over the church plus Jesus said that He Himself would remain with His Church until the end of the Age, that the idea that the Church being held accountable is moot. For if the Church is to be held accountable then God is to be held accountable and to whom are you going to hold God accountable? You going to take God to the scripture police??? So your entire argument of accountability is ludicrous and falls apart like a house of cards.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

If the Church is accountable then it is accountable to God alone.

Then you disagree with The Catholic Church.

It passionately holds that ALL teachers of doctrine are fully, wholly, completely accountable for what is taught RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW - and not just to God. As you know, it has a very long history of judging teachers and teachings, of declaring some teachings and teachers to be wrong, of excommunicating, declaring some of heresy and that they are heretics, even occasionally dispatching the wrong to their appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke. It DISAGREES with you that teachers are accountable only to God. Frankly, I do too. Which is it? Do you argree with The Catholic Church and I that teachers are accountable here and now, or do you think that teacher are only accountable to God and The Catholic Church needs to reverse and repent of all its excommunications, declaration of heresies, and firery dismissals from earthly life?

In addition, it is also incumbent to say that because of the promises made by Christ to His Church, namely, that it would be led into all truth by the Spirit of Truth and that hell would not prevail over the church plus Jesus said that He Himself would remain with His Church until the end of the Age, that the idea that the Church being held accountable is moot.

Such is the claim of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone. We’re discussing if it is the most sound epistemology and the most sound way to determine correctness for the defendant to excempt himself alone from accountability and for himself alone to insist instead that he alone is incapable of being wrong, and that all just lay aside accountability in the singular, exclusive case of self alone and rather just accept whatever self alone says with docility.

Of course, as we all know, Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED The Catholic Church. For anything, about anything, concerning anything, in any regard for any matter. And you, too, seem to be confusing Teacher with students, Leader with followers. I’d suggest you read Genesis Chapter 3.

Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you think that the teachers of such are accountable for what is taught as such?
Do you think The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
IF so, then The Catholic Church is fully accountable for the doctrine it teaches, no less than all other teachers of such, and the question then becomes WHAT is the most sound norma normans for the norming of such?

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.