Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

Sola Scriptura embraces two things. The first is accountability. Those that embrace it believe that truth matters and that no truth matters more than doctrine concerning our very souls. Thus, the teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such. This goes for all among us: whether as individuals or collectively in our various church groups. The Scriptures that immediately pop into my mind (at least NT ones, there are lots more OT ones):

2 Peter 2:1
Titus 2:1
Revelation 2:2
1 Timothy 6:3
James 3:1
Matthew 13:52
Luke 20:46
Ephesians 4:14
And many more.

Once accountability is embraced, we’ve entered the second issue, the realm of norming. Norming is the issue of evaluating if a position is correct, valid or true. Accountability requires such. There are two main issues in norming: The embraced rule/canon (straight edge, measuring stick, standard, plumbline) and the arbitration (how will it be determined if the position “measures up” - arbitration, with the “measuring stick” - the norma normans). Sola Scriptura only concerns the first of these: WHAT serves as the rule/canon/norma normans. The praxis is the embrace of Scripture for such, as positions among us are evaluated.

Quoting of Scripture for such would be a bit circular, and I admit there is no verse that says, “Use Scripture as your canon in the norming of teachings among you.” However, it is the only norma normans we see used in Scripture (Jesus used this praxis some 50 times) and most Protestants think it simply the most sound canon for this purpose. We ultimately embrace God as the Authority, and here we have the literal inscripturated words of God Himself. In the words of The Handbook of The Catholic Faith, page 138, “The Bible is authoritative because the Author is God.” And again, “The Bible in inerrant because God, its Author, cannot err.” And it is objective (literally in black on white words) - knowable to ALL and alterable by NONE. And because it has a strong, historic, ecumenical embrace as reliable (even inerrant!) - it is embraced as reliable among us ALL. And maybe most important, it is not just ONE of us. Self saying that self is the rule/canon for the norming of self is obviously a perfect circle - and is rejected by all as a completely worthless rule/canon (self usually agrees with self, lol). As in all disciplines, we need a reliable, knowable rule/canon OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND all parties. We think Scripture best qualifies.

.

Of course, since the Catholic Church is the body (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit imparted to it by Jesus Christ himself) that defined what is and is not Sacred Scripture, it’s only logical that Scripture would fit in with the other aspects of the fullness of the truth - Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

1. I’m struggling to see how that relates to anything I posted or to the issue at hand.
2. Of course, what The Catholic Church did at Trent was that IT alone embraced the corpus of Scriptures for IT alone; it simply officially defined for self that corpus. The same is true if you want to consider The Council of Hippo or any other earlier meeting (which, IMHO, would be inappropriate). Friend, nearly all denominations have - in some formal way at some official meeting - defined what it regards as Scripture. None of these actions have any relevance whatsoever to the embrace of those books, they are all simply the official acknowledgement of such for that body. I could state the sun arose this morning and official state the sun shines, but that has nothing to do with causing the sun to rise. Any study of this issue reveals that Scripture was embraced by such LONG, LONG before any denomination (yours, mine or any other) officially embrace such as such for self. When Moses came down from that mountain, the Israelities accepted such as Scripture - they didn’t have to wait until 1552 and the RCC Council of Trent. Jesus specifically states “SCRIPTURE says…” 22 times in the Gospels, and thus some 400 years before the meeting at Hippo, thus He didn’t need any denominations official declaration of Scripture to determine what is and is not so (obviously, no Pope gave him the list of books acknowledged at the Council of Trent over 1500 years later, nor didn’t have any needed to do that).
3. I disagree with you (and so does the Catholic Church) that the views of self are the most sound norma normans for the veiws of self. To ask if Catholic Tradition conforms to Catholic Tradition has no relevance whatsoever to whether Catholic Tradition is correct; it’s just a perfect circle which is why The Catholic Church rejects the rule/canon you suggest.
4. I gave some of the Scriptures that support the accountability of teachers. If there are any that state that The Catholic Church - specifically, exclusively and perpetually - is not accountable, please share those. I noted that the Rule of Scripture is used repeatedly in Scripture (praxis is to be EXAMPLED, not taught; doctrines are taught, practices are illustrated). What has not been done is to show in Scripture is that the Traditions of The Catholic Church were ever used as the norma normans for the Traditions of The Catholic Church.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[PJM]

AmericanJosiah;6341492]Thank you. As a Protestant GUEST here at Catholic Forums, I do not desire to persuade or convert any; that’s not what a guest does. But, as a former Catholic and now Lutheran - having been in both “camps” - I think there is MUCH disunderstanding, and IF we can respectfully explain things - I think that helps. Not to convert, but simply in the spirit of mutual understanding. If we are going to disagree, let’s at least disagree with reality - not misunderstandings…

OK:thumbsup:

But I have not disagreed with you … YET

If you wish to discuss this or any issue regarding faith, the bilbe, belief systems. I’m open to friendly dialog.

In your beautiful disortation I could find nothing specifically to disagree with; but I am curious as to why you hold such a position? It’s base premis seems to me [vastly under educated] to not have a logical foundation?

Love and prayers and wecome to the Forum.

Pat

 

[Mea_Culpa]

1. I’m struggling to see how that relates to anything I posted or to the issue at hand.
2. Of course, what The Catholic Church did at Trent was that IT alone embraced the corpus of Scriptures for IT alone; it simply officially defined for self that corpus. The same is true if you want to consider The Council of Hippo or any other earlier meeting (which, IMHO, would be inappropriate). Friend, nearly all denominations have - in some formal way at some official meeting - defined what it regards as Scripture. None of these actions have any relevance whatsoever to the embrace of those books, they are all simply the official acknowledgement of such for that body. I could state the sun arose this morning and official state the sun shines, but that has nothing to do with causing the sun to rise. Any study of this issue reveals that Scripture was embraced by such LONG, LONG before any denomination (yours, mine or any other) officially embrace such as such for self. When Moses came down from that mountain, the Israelities accepted such as Scripture - they didn’t have to wait until 1552 and the RCC Council of Trent. Jesus specifically states “SCRIPTURE says…” 22 times in the Gospels, and thus some 400 years before the meeting at Hippo, thus He didn’t need any denominations official declaration of Scripture to determine what is and is not so (obviously, no Pope gave him the list of books acknowledged at the Council of Trent over 1500 years later, nor didn’t have any needed to do that).
3. I disagree with you (and so does the Catholic Church) that the views of self are the most sound norma normans for the veiws of self. To ask if Catholic Tradition conforms to Catholic Tradition has no relevance whatsoever to whether Catholic Tradition is correct; it’s just a perfect circle which is why The Catholic Church rejects the rule/canon you suggest.
4. I gave some of the Scriptures that support the accountability of teachers. If there are any that state that The Catholic Church - specifically, exclusively and perpetually - is not accountable, please share those. I noted that the Rule of Scripture is used repeatedly in Scripture (praxis is to be EXAMPLED, not taught; doctrines are taught, practices are illustrated). What has not been done is to show in Scripture is that the Traditions of The Catholic Church were ever used as the norma normans for the Traditions of The Catholic Church.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

A lot of smoke blown, but still no scriptural references supporting the (unscriptural) doctrine of sola scriptura. HMM. Guess there aren’t any.

 

[dnu]

It wasn’t necessary to state that the Catholic Church was the only source of authority because the Catholic Church was the only source of authority. Why would the first-century Catholic Bishops talk about themselves in the third person?

It makes me laugh when Protestants say “it never specifies that,” when the reality is, the authors didn’t need to, it was understood. There were no 38,000 denominations to mediate between. There was only one Church, the one founded in the upper-room, the same Church that exists today under the guidance of the Bishop of Rome. That too was understood, even without spelling it out word for word.

Absence of proof is not proof of its absence.

Sorry Protestants

Thank God for the Catholic Church and its Amazing Grace…I once was blind but now I see!

 

[dnu]

For instance, if I say “Obama,” it is completely unecessary for me to say:

“Barack Obama, the democratically elected official voted into office in November of 2008 as the result of the electoral college who is now the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military who will leave office in 2012 etc. etc. etc.”

By simply saying “Obama,” the rest is already implied and completely understood by Americans. Omitting the rest of that does not diminish any of that from Obamas position as President at all. Such is the case with the New Testament letters. Simply referring to “Peter” without going into details of his position or simply saying “church” without saying “Catholic Church founded on Pentecost”, etc. etc. has no affect on the validity of Peters position or the undeniable truth of the Catholic Church.

This “it never says that” rhetoric Protestants use is a waste of bandwidth.

 

[peeteyg]

The passage from Timothy that makes reference to the scriptures is in fact speaking about the Septuagint and the OT. Almost all of the references to Scripture in the NT is directed at the OT which was the scriptures they used. This works against Sola Scriptura.

With regard to the NT much of it was transmitted orally before it was written down. How can it be scripture unless it was written down and read? The NT does not contain or list the books and letters that were to be contained in the bible. The Catholic Church in her authoritative role decided which books to be included in the Canon. None of this supports Sola Scriptura at all.

 

[guanophore]

There is no such “belief.”

**Sola Scriptura **(aka The Rule of Scripture) is the PRAXIS (practice) of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”)/ or as it is known in epistemology, the norma normans (“norm that norms”) in the norming of doctrines among us.

Indeed, there is such belief in many Protestant communities. It is a belief based upon the doctrine that Scripture Alone is the final authority. The problem with this, in addition to the fact that those same scriptures teach the opposite, is that it makes each individual into his own authority. Everyone who reads it interprets for himself, and his own inner “norm/canon” is what becomes the straight edge for himself.

 The best, most sound norma normans is one OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND all parties involved, one that is knowable by all and alterable by none, with a strong (and hopefully historic and universal) embrace as reliable for this purpose.  The more objective, the better.

This is very true, and the foundation of the error of Sola Scriptura. In fact, it is the HS, working thorugh the Church, that is the objective established by Christ. As it was written following the first church council “it seemed right to the HS and to us”. This exercise of divine revelation is what is reliable.

  Now, if truth doesn't matter to you .....

You are implying that the Catholic Church, because she must reject SS, does not care about the truth.

Then, we are embracing Bob as ACCOUNTABLE for his teaching.  That, then, mandates norming.  Norming is the consideration of whether a position is valid, correct, true.  And the first issue in such is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans?

Here you are implying that Catholics do not embrace accountability for the Teachings of the Church.

Now, turning to doctrine, some Christians think that truth in such matters, and thus believe that teachers of such are ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach as doctrine. Thus, norming is embraced and the first issue becomes WHAT is most sound as the rule/canon here? They believe that Scripture is best.

Indeed, this is true. The question of the thread is, however, why did these Christians reject the norm/rule/canon set up by Christ, and replace it with something invented 1500 years later that is in contradiction to the teaching of the Apostles?

 It is regarded by Christians as inerrant and the inscripturated words of God Himself (whom we all see as the ultimately Authority among us); it is knowable by all (we can all equally read the words on the pages) and it is alterable by none (none can change those words).

Well, yes and no. I contest that the scripture can be “knowable by all”. One need only look at the plethora of denominations that exist to find evidence that what one can “know” by reading can be very contradictory to what the honest and pious person down the street “knows” when they read it.

Indeed, it is alterable by any. I was sitting with a Jehovah Witness the other day, who was telling me that the alterations made by her faith tradition were “closer to the original manuscripts”.

And since it is God’s very inscripturated words and inerrant, we regard it as reliable. We think it a sound norma normans. Some (namely the RCC, LDS as well generally all cults) reject the Rule of Scripture, but not because they have a better candidate for the function but because each rejects accountability for the doctrines of itself,

Here, we are beyond implying into accusation. You state clearly that the RCC rejects the errant doctrine of SS because she “rejects accountability for the doctrines of itself”. This false statement is both the seed and the fruit of the Reformation.

On the contrary, the Catholic Church rejects SS because it contradicts the Apostolic faith that has been committed to the Church, and for which we have been given responsibility by God.

Of course the Scriptures are inerrante and reliable. However, the Reformers (and you by virtue of embracing the heresies they purported) try to force the Holy Scriptures into a role they were never meant to play; that of “rule”. “Ruling”, or the exercise of authority, requires a person. Books, howeverr holy, do not have the elements required to exercise authority. This is why persons who embrace SS end up becoming their own autonomous authority.

requiring instead that all just accept whatever doctrine that teacher exclusively “with docility.” We disagree on the issue of accountability of doctrines.

Clearly you have misunderstood the Catechism. This is a false statement about teachers. I am not sure that we do disagree on the accountability of doctrines. The Catholic Church clearly teaches that no doctrine can contradict the Holy Scriptures.
If there appears to be a contradiction, then the student misunderstands the teaching, or the Scripture, or both. In your case, it appears to be both.

 

[guanophore]

And we are told - over and over and over - to beware of false teachers (and none is exempted) thus implying accountability for teachers, and we have Jesus praising the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for norming them, and even for arbitrating the issue and declaring them false; Jesus praised them for this indicating that accountability and norming of teachers is praiseworthy rather than condemnable (Rev. 2:2).

Indeed! What you don’t seem to realize is that those "norms’ were the Sacred Traditions that were committed to the Church by the Apostles.

I hope that helps.

It certainly helps to clarify your misunderstandings of the Catholic faith. As you have correctly noted, this is a major factor in our divisions. Most people who leave the Catholic Church never understood their faith. It sounds like you may have been personally wounded by a teacher who had departed from the Apostolic Faith.

1. First Timothy 3:15 does not say that The Catholic Church - specifically, particularly, exclusively and perpetually - is the sole authority, sole interpeter, infallible, incapable of error (in matters of faith and morals) and exempt from accountability/norming;

Jesus only founded ONE CHURCH. It is Catholic. All others were founded by men. The founder of your tradition is contained in the affiliation you claim next to your post count.

On the contrary, Jesus did specifically, particulaly, and exclusivly appoint the Apostles, and their successors to the authority to shepherd and guide the flock. It is not perpetual, though. The Church will only need Apostolic Authority until He returns, and she is taken up.

I do agree, though, that no one is exempt from accountability and norming. Perhaps you have had a wounding experience with regard to this.

it does not say that all are just to accept whatever it and it itself exclusively says “with docility” (CCC 87, etc.).

To an extent, I agree. The principle of being found teachable is found in other passages. However, one of the errors of SS is the belief that the Scripture accomplishes all those tasks listed in 3:15, when in fact, it is to persons that Christ entrusted those duties. Scripture is profitable in accomplishing the tasks, but the responsibiliity belongs to those who are ordained to do them.

One of the reasons that Scripture cannot be the authority is that it is necessary for authority to be held accountable, and to be responsible. Scripture does not have these characteristics, because it is not a person.

1. You seem to be confusing the norma normans The Catholic Church uses when norming the teachings of ALL OTHERS (which it DOES hold wholly and fully accountable, right here and right now) with what is to be used for its OWN teachings.

I am sorry that I did not get the point you were trying to make here.

My Catholic teachers taught me that it’s OWN teachings are correct and need no norming.

Perhaps this is the source of your present protesting against the Church?

The “three-legged-stool” that you present is the norm for ALL OTHER TEACHERS, it would be silly for itself (since it is just itself: “If I agree with me, then I’m right” is a rubric The Catholic Church correct rejects - and so should you). The 3 legs are: CATHOLIC Tradition as defined, chosen and interpreted exclusively by The Catholic Church + the Scriptures not on any page or tome but in the “heart” of The Catholic Church as interpeted by The Catholic Church so as to agree with The Catholic Church + the Magisterium of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church among clergy of The Catholic Church who have pledged upon death to uphold the teachings of The Catholic Church - these 3 forming ONE norma normans,

Again I am not sure what the point is you are trying to make here. You seem to be invested in making the authority given by Christ to the Catholic Church void…I am not sure I am following your reasoning, though.

so that if The Catholic Church teaches it, Scirpture MUST teach it (if only by invisible words) since otherwise Scripture would be wrong since The Catholic Church cannot be. Friend, even The Catholic Church rejects that as a norm for ITSELF (it would be a prefect circle of self-authentication).

I think you are summarizing here what another poster has forwarded? You are right, the Catholic Church does reject the circle of self-authentication.

 And yes, it does embrace accountability - which is where the disagreement lies.

I don’t think so. I think the disagreement lies in your perceptions of accountability, and not the actual accountability of teachers in the Catholic Church.

I hope that your sojourn on CAF will be a healing course for you, and that you will come to realize that you were wrongly instructed at some point, and that your interpretation of the Catechism is not accurate.

 

[surritter]

Just a quick note: Josiah, be aware that when the Catechism says “with docility,” it doesn’t mean it in the same sense that the average American does. Too many people think of that term as being equal to a doormat.

Rather, docile means to be “teachable” or “capable of meekness.” That’s exactly what Christians ought to be (unless of course you believe in Sola Scriptura, where “no other authority is gonna tell me what to believe!”)

 

[guanophore]

Just a quick note: Josiah, be aware that when the Catechism says “with docility,” it doesn’t mean it in the same sense that the average American does. Too many people think of that term as being equal to a doormat.

Rather, it means to be “teachable” or “capable of meekness.” That’s exactly what Christians ought to be (unless of course you believe in Sola Scriptura, where “no other authority is gonna tell me what to believe!”)

This is a good point.

Jas 1:21 Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

The Word that was able to save was received from the Apostles, and those to whom they committed it. This occurred prior to any of the NT being written.

 

[windlessuser]

AmericanJosh, Do you believe in Apostolic succession? That seems to be the root of this problem

 

[AmericanJosiah]

AmericanJosh, Do you believe in Apostolic succession? That seems to be the root of this problem

No, it’s not. The “root” of our disagreement is accountability.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

There is no such "belief."

Sola Scriptura (aka The Rule of Scripture) is the PRAXIS (practice) of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”)/ or as it is known in epistemology, the norma normans (“norm that norms”) in the norming of doctrines among us.

.

The problem with this, in addition to the fact that those same scriptures teach the opposite, is that it makes each individual into his own authority. Everyone who reads it interprets for himself, and his own inner “norm/canon” is what becomes the straight edge for himself.

1. Let’s not hijack this thread into a discussion about hermeneutics or arbitration; this thread is about the embraced rule in norming; in Sola Scriptura, the embraced rule/canon/norma normans is Scripture.
2. If you disagree with self appointing self as the sole, authoritative and unaccountable interpreter, then your “problem” is solely and exclusively with one: The Catholic Church. It is the only one that does that (read your Catechism # 85, 87, etc.). Search all you want (please!) - you will find no other Catechism or official statement that does what The Catholic Church does and what you here seem to be rebuking. But again, this thread is not about hermeneutics or arbitration, it’s about accountability and the embraced rule/canon for the norming that requires.

The best, most sound norma normans is one OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND all parties involved, one that is knowable by all and alterable by none, with a strong (and hopefully historic and universal) embrace as reliable for this purpose. The more objective, the better.

.

This is very true, and the foundation of the error of Sola Scriptura. In fact, it is the HS, working thorugh the Church, that is the objective established by Christ.

So, how is the views of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church more “outside, above and beyond” The Catholic Church? You seem to be saying that The Catholic Church is what is most “above, outside and beyond” The Catholic Church.

Now, if truth doesn’t matter to you …

Then, we are embracing Bob as ACCOUNTABLE for his teaching. That, then, mandates norming. Norming is the consideration of whether a position is valid, correct, true. And the first issue in such is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans?

Now, turning to doctrine, some Christians think that truth in such matters, and thus believe that teachers of such are ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach as doctrine. Thus, norming is embraced and the first issue becomes WHAT is most sound as the rule/canon here? They believe that Scripture is best.

.

Indeed, this is true. The question of the thread is, however, why did these Christians reject the norm/rule/canon set up by Christ, and replace it with something invented 1500 years later that is in contradiction to the teaching of the Apostles?

1. The Catholic Church has no rule/canon/norma normans for the teachings of it and it itself exclusively, those teachings are simply to be accepted “with docility.” The Catholic Church insists that The Catholic Church is incapable of error in these matters, thus accountability/norming are moot in the singular case of The Catholic Church alone. It DOES, of course, have a rule/canon for the norming of the teachings of ALL OTHERS since it insists that all others are accountable: the rule/canon for all others is what The Catholic Church exclusively teaches for it insists that it is correct so if others agree with it then they, too, are correct. But this is not the rule/canon it uses for itself (that would be a perfect circle of self-authentication, as if self agreeing with self indicates correctness - and obviously it does not).
2. Actually, Scripture was used normatively for many, many centuries before The Catholic Church ever was. The Rule of Scripture is many centuries older than the Rule of The Catholic Church.

**
Continues in the next post…**

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Continuing the post above…

Scripture is regarded by Christians as inerrant and the inscripturated words of God Himself (whom we all see as the ultimately Authority among us); it is knowable by all (we can all equally read the words on the pages) and it is alterable by none (none can change those words).

.

Well, yes and no. I contest that the scripture can be “knowable by all”.

All parties in the normative process can read the words in Romans 3:23. It’s objective, knowable by all, alterable by none.

And since it is God’s very inscripturated words and inerrant, we regard it as reliable. We think it a sound norma normans. Some (namely the RCC, LDS as well generally all cults) reject the Rule of Scripture, but not because they have a better candidate for the function but because each rejects accountability for the doctrines of itself,

.

Of course the Scriptures are inerrante and reliable. However, the Reformers (and you by virtue of embracing the heresies they purported) try to force the Holy Scriptures into a role they were never meant to play; that of “rule”.

They were normative for 3000 years before Luther was born. When Moses came down the mountain with the first Scripture, such became normative for those issues. Moses did not say, “These are nice to read, but the rule/canon for morality is The Catholic Church.” Jesus used Scripture normatively some 50 times (specifically referring to such as “Scripture” 22 times) but never once so much as even mentioned The Catholic Church.

… requiring instead that all just accept whatever doctrine that teacher exclusively “with docility.” We disagree on the issue of accountability of doctrines.

.

The Catholic Church clearly teaches that no doctrine can contradict the Holy Scriptures.

What Scripture? Not actual words on any page. The “Scripture” that must “agree” with The Catholic Church is the Scripture “in the heart of The Catholic Church” (CCC 113) as interpreted by The Catholic Church (CCC 85) so long as it agrees with the “Tradition” of The Catholic Church (CCC 82, 95). If Scripture were to indicate something not in full accord with the teachings of The Catholic Church, such Scripture (and thus God, the Author) would be wrong for The Catholic Church alone insists that The Catholic Church cannot be wrong and thus Scripture must agree with The Catholic Church or Scripture would be wrong.

But again, you seem to be implying some accountability of Catholic doctrine, as if Scripture is the rule/canon and The Catholic Church actually embraces Sola Scriptura. It does not.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Although I do not accept sola scriptura, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is not completely devoid of the SOLA. Note where it says “perfect.” This word doesn’t mean without sin. What is means is “complete.” If the man of God is made complete through scripture, what need does he have of anything else?

What need does he have of anything else? Yes, good question.

To answer that question, let’s look at it this way. The quotation says “man of God.” That is, scripture completes not just any old person, but “man of God.” You have to be a man of God first, and then, and only then, can scripture complete you.

This very passage, consequently, becomes an argument not for Sola Scriptura, but against it, because something else is needed first in order for you to become a man of God!

 

[surritter]

No, it’s not. The “root” of our disagreement is accountability.

Good deflection – but why not answer the question?

Do you believe in apostolic succession? Your use of the word accountability makes it sound like you understand that an authority is needed, yet it would have to be the successors to the apostles (if you don’t believe in sola scriptura).

 

[simspt]

No, it’s not. The “root” of our disagreement is accountability.

.

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYON (c. 180-199 AD)

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized AT ROME by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. FOR WITH THIS CHURCH, BECAUSE OF ITS SUPERIOR ORIGIN [or "preeminent authority"] ALL CHURCHES MUST AGREE, THAT IS, ALL THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD; AND IT IS IN HER THAT THE FAITHFUL EVERYWHERE HAVE MAINTAINED THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION." [then follows a list of successors to Peter as bishops of Rome] (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3)

How ironic, approximately 1800 years later and here we are discussing the role of how to interpret scripture. I find it interesting how Christians of the 2nd century defended the true teachings and interpretation that were passed down to them by tradition and writings. They always seem to fall back on apostolic tradition and succession, not inspiration even though they believed them to be inspired. These were Catholics who were very accountable for defending the Church against erroneous teachings and for the instruction of catechumenates .

 

[guanophore]

No, it’s not. The “root” of our disagreement is accountability…

They are one and the same. It is the Apostolic Succession that creates and fosters accountability. It is that succession that produced and follows the canon of scripture.

 

[guanophore]

. this thread is about the embraced rule in norming; in Sola Scriptura, the embraced rule/canon/norma normans is Scripture.

1. If you disagree with self appointing self as the sole, authoritative and unaccountable interpreter, then your “problem” is solely and exclusively with one: The Catholic Church. It is the only one that does that (read your Catechism # 85, 87, etc.).

No, the Church was founded by Christ, and He appointed the Apostles, and they, by the guidance of the HS, appointed faithful men who were able to teach others also. This is the Apostolic Succession It was not invented by Catholics, but ordained by Christ.

. Search all you want (please!) - you will find no other Catechism or official statement that does what The Catholic Church does and what you here seem to be rebuking.

Believe me, I did search! It would be a preposterous claim, if it were not the truth.

. But again, this thread is not about hermeneutics or arbitration, it’s about accountability and the embraced rule/canon for the norming that requires.

Accountability relates to authority. The Scriptures cannot wield authority, because that is an activity of persons, not writings, however holy.

. So, how is the views of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church more “outside, above and beyond” The Catholic Church?

Sacred Tradition is the Word of God that was commited to the Church by the Apostles. It is the point of view of Christ, which was given to them.

. You seem to be saying that The Catholic Church is what is most “above, outside and beyond” The Catholic Church.

Sacred Tradition, the Word of God within the Church is above the Church. The Word of God is not confined to the Scriptures. I think you will see this if you read the first three chapters of the book of Revelation. The Word of God outside the Scriptures is alive, well, and in authority over His Church.

. 1. The Catholic Church has no rule/canon/norma normans for the teachings of it and it itself exclusively, those teachings are simply to be accepted “with docility.”

I guess you must wish this to be true, so that you don’t have to accept what was handed down to us by the Apostles. Indeed, you are the opposite of those noble Bereans, who received the Apostolic Preaching with eagerness.

. The Catholic Church insists that The Catholic Church is incapable of error in these matters, thus accountability/norming are moot in the singular case of The Catholic Church alone.

Did you think that Jesus would leave His Church with errors? Do you think He is incapable of protecting the Church from error? Do you think the frailties of man are stronger than the guidance of God? What you seem to be saying is that Jesus is too weak or disinterested to keep His promises.

Accountability and norming are possible BECAUSE the church is infallible.

. It DOES, of course, have a rule/canon for the norming of the teachings of ALL OTHERS since it insists that all others are accountable: the rule/canon for all others is what The Catholic Church exclusively teaches for it insists that it is correct so if others agree with it then they, too, are correct.

Apostolic Truth is to be affirmed wherever it is found.

. But this is not the rule/canon it uses for itself (that would be a perfect circle of self-authentication, as if self agreeing with self indicates correctness - and obviously it does not).

It seems clear that you believe the Spirit of God does not dwell withing the teaching authority appointed by Christ that subsists in the Catholic Church.

. Actually, Scripture was used normatively for many, many centuries before The Catholic Church ever was. The Rule of Scripture is many centuries older than the Rule of The Catholic Church.

These two statements explain most of the difficulties you seem to be havin Josiah. Clearly you don’t realize that the Catholic Church is the one that is written about in the NT.

**
Continues in the next post…** .

That is not necessary, really. Now that it is clear that your perception of history is grossly distorted, it stands to reason that conclusions you have made that are based upon it will be erroneous.

 

[guanophore]

. If Scripture were to indicate something not in full accord with the teachings of The Catholic Church, such Scripture (and thus God, the Author) would be wrong for The Catholic Church alone insists that The Catholic Church cannot be wrong and thus Scripture must agree with The Catholic Church or Scripture would be wrong.

No, Josiah. There is nothing wrong with Scripture, which was produced by the Catholic Church. The error is in the perception of the person interpreting it.

. But again, you seem to be implying some accountability of Catholic doctrine, as if Scripture is the rule/canon and The Catholic Church actually embraces Sola Scriptura. It does not.

No, we are not permitted to embrace novel innovations that depart from the Teaching we received from the Apsotles. Yes, scripture is a sure norm for the faith, but it is not separated from that faith that was preached and taught.

When it is, errors result.