Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura

[stanmaxkolbe]

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!

HOOAH!—SPOT ON!

 

[Zenas]

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!

One of the things I enjoy about participating in forums such as this is the exchange of ideas. Occasionally someone comes up with something I never before heard of or thought about, and you have done that. Thanks for making my day “perfect.” :tiphat:

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

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).

Good deflection - but why not address the issue of this thread?

Apostolic Succession is moot to WHAT is the most sound norma normans in the evaluation of the doctrines among us. And obviously, undeniably, an embrace of the clergy of The Catholic Church pledged to uphold the teachings of the bishops of The Catholic Church as the “rule” for the teachings of The Catholic Church would just be a perfect circle of self-authentication, which is why The Catholic Church rejects that as the norma normans.

No, I agree with The Catholic Church and disagree with you; self is not the most sound rule/canon for the norming of the teachings of self. Self will always agree with self, but that’s entirely unrelated to the issue of whether self is correct.

The issue here is accountability for what is taught as doctrine, including by The Catholic Church. And if such is embraced (and we all realize, as a Catholic you are not so permitted by The Catholic Church), then you have embrace norming and the question becomes WHAT is the most sound norma normans for this? The Catholic Church does NOT embrace self as the most sound rule/canon for this norming (such would be absurd), it doesn’t accept ANY norma normans (at least vis-a-vis the doctrines of itself) since it doesn’t accept accountability for those doctrines (and thus norming and all aspects of such, including WHATEVER might serve as the norma normans), rather, it alone requires that all just accept whatever it alone says “with docility.” All OTHERS are fully accountable - right here, right now - and it has a rule/canon for the norming of what ALL OTHERS teach, but what IT and IT itself alone teaches is simply to be accepted as correct cuz it is. This the the root of our disagreement: the soundness of that epistemology which The Catholic Church insists upon (but only for itself; it rejects and ridicules the very same epistemology in every other case). The same is true for all that reject Sola Scriptura (LDS as well as all cults, for example).

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

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.

1. The Catholic Church wrote not a single letter of Scripture. I disagree with you and agree with The Catholic Church in this matter. “The Handbook of the Catholic Faith” page 136 states, “The Bible is the very word of God and no greater credence exists. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God himself is the Author of the Bible. God guided the penmen to write as He wished so that it is His own.” “The Bible is authoritative because of its Author.” Yes, The Catholic Church officially embraced the Scriptures as such for itself in a formal manner, just as nearly all other denominations are done, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with Scripture or the embrace of it; acknowledging is not related to producing or creating. Jesus didn’t need The Catholic Church to do anything as He referred - specifically and by name - to Scripture some 22 times, or as He used such normatively some 50 times (a process called Sola Scriptura).
2. Then you agree that interpretations can be incorrect! That means that such is accountable. In so declaring, you reject the insistence of The Catholic Church as it and it itself exclusively designates it and it itself exclusively as the sole interpreter of Scripture and declares self as unaccountable for such since self alone declares self alone to be INCAPABLE of error in this regard (officially anyway) and thus self alone declares self alone as exempt from norming. This is the root of our disagreement. The Catholic Church insisting that the most sound way to determine the correctness of a position is for self alone to declare self alone to be correct - exempting self alone from accountability (as long as that self is The Catholic Church exclusively, insists The Catholic Church exclusively). Many regard this to actually be entirely unrelated to whether that teacher is correct. The Catholic Church wholly agrees, but it and it itself exclusively makes one remarkable exception: itself, making a 180 in the singular, exclusively, sole case of it itself alone.

.

 

[IronHammer]

surritter;6354462:

Good deflection - but why not address the issue of this thread?

Apostolic Succession is moot to WHAT is the most sound norma normans in the evaluation of the doctrines among us.

Pardon my interjection but how can you say that Apostolic Succession is moot to the discussion of Sola Scriptura when Apostolic Succession is the only possible alternative to SS and is direct opposition to SS? Any discussion of the validity of SS must consider alternatives to it!

 

[AmericanJosiah]

How ironic, approximately 1800 years later and here we are discussing the role of how to interpret scripture.

No, we are not. We seem to be agreeing that such interpretations are CAPABLE of being wrong, and thus we are embracing the accountability of such and the need for norming in such. Therefore, you are distancing yourself from the Catholic position and embracing the Protestant one: which is that positions are capable of being incorrect, teachers are to be held accountable, and that norming is necessary in such. The question then becomes what best serves as the norma normans in such? This thread is not about hermeneutics, it’s about accountability.

I find it interesting how Christians of the 2nd century defended the true teachings and interpretation

AND how they regarded teachers as accountable and that teachers CAN be incorrect. This is contrary to the position of The Catholic Church which itself alone insists is incapable of error and is exempt from norming and whatever it and it alone says is simply to be rather accepted as correct “with docility.”

Actually, the quote is about teachings OF THE APOSTLES. It says nothing about the teachings of The Catholic Church and thus is moot to our discussion.

Let us keep clearly in mind that over and over and over in Scripture, we are warned about FALSE teachers - suggesting to me that it’s possible for teachers to be wrong. Jesus praised the Ephesian Christians for doing what The Catholic Church rejects: holding teachers as accountable, testing/norming them, arbitrating the issue, and finding those teachers as false (Rev. 2:2). Never once does Jesus or ANY of the Apostles state that The Catholic Church is infallible/unaccountable or exempt from norming. Read the following: 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. All of which seem to make the insistence of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone at least problematic.

Thank you!

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Pardon my interjection but how can you say that Apostolic Succession is moot to the discussion of Sola Scriptura when Apostolic Succession is the only possible alternative to SS and is direct opposition to SS? Any discussion of the validity of SS must consider alternatives to it!

I agree with The Catholic Church (at least as taught by my Catholic teachers) that agreement of self with self is not an indication of correctness. It would be the expectation of all that the Bishops of The Catholic Church - all pledged to the teachings of The Catholic Church - would agree with the teachings of The Catholic Church (at least as those Bishops are embraced as correct by The Catholic Church). Self usually agrees with self, but that’s seems remarkably irrelevant to whether self is correct. I agree with the Catholic Church, this would only be a perfect circle of self-authentication. Logic and reason and epistemology aside, history also reveals this. The OO and EO also have Apostolic Succession and yet The Catholic Church disagrees with them both - how can they all be infallible (as a function of Apostolic Succession) since they don’t agree? And, historically, there is no distinction in this “succession” between clergy of The Catholic Church, the Oritental Orthodox Churches, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, Anglican, Lutheran, and well beyond - they ALL have the rubric that only bishops may ordain, thus all have EXACTLY the same “Apostolic Succession” as a historical reality (even though The Catholic Church may declare some non-authorized, but that in NO SENSE removes the HISTORICAL reality that all are a succession going back to the Apostles). Yet, not all of these agree, so how can such succession mandate infalliblity/unaccountability and the incapablility of error?

Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what is taught as such?
Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
IF so, then you embrace that The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches as doctrine - no less than any and all others.
And thus, you desert the requirment of The Catholic Church alone that it alone be exempt from such and whatever it alone teaches just rather be accepted “with docility”
And you have embraced norming.
The issue then becomes WHAT is the most sound norma normans for the norming of the doctrines among us?
THAT is the singular issue of this thread.

Thank you!

Pax

• Josiah
  .

 

[IronHammer]

The issue then becomes WHAT is the most sound norma normans for the norming of the doctrines among us?
THAT is the singular issue of this thread.

Anything and everything on earth (and in Heaven) is established by an authority of some kind. Who, then, had the authority to establish SS as the “norma normans”? And, by extension, what proof do we have that said authority established SS as the sole rule of faith?

 

[simspt]

AND how they regarded teachers as accountable and that teachers CAN be incorrect. This is contrary to the position of The Catholic Church which itself alone insists is incapable of error and is exempt from norming and whatever it and it alone says is simply to be rather accepted as correct “with docility.”

Actually, the quote is about teachings OF THE APOSTLES. It says nothing about the teachings of The Catholic Church and thus is moot to our discussion.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Of course teachers can be wrong, that is clear in the NT where by the end of the first century or sooner the Gnostics were probably already gaining ground. By the 2nd century they were in full force and the Christians were very accountable to the truth they had received and proved this by their defense of that truth. The leaders of these first churches had strict criteria as you know they had to fulfill to be eligible to become bishops. This system worked very well for passing things down from one generation to the next. How is that point moot in our discussion.

 

[inkaneer]

You have witnessed, in this one thread, the ever changing shape of the amoeba that is protestantism. Sola Scriptura is no longer a doctrine of Protestantism it is a **PRAXIS **. I guess the same is true of private interpretation of the scriptures too. It seems that whenever protestants formulate a doctrine and find out that scripture contradicts it they change it. I have witnessed sola scriptura go from the status of being the only authority, to the final authority, to just an authority, to a standard, to a praxis. Pray tell, what is next??? You would think that they would have changed the name from ‘sola scriptura’ to ‘fini scriptura’ to just scriptura. But they kept the ‘sola’ part.

The OP requested scriptural documentation for this doctrine of sola scriptura and the protestants here have given none. They gave none because there are none. We can talk about normative norms and standards of accountability till we are blue in the face but the bottom line is that sola scriptura is unscriptural. Catholics say that one of the characteristics of God is immutability. Protestants say God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Both mean that God is unchanging. Well it follows that if God is unchanging then His word, which is Truth, is also unchanging. So 2,000 years ago when Paul penned the words in 2 Thess 2:15,

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” [2Thess 2:15]

they are as true today as then. Forget about any praxis or normative norms etal. Protestants would like to forget what happens when one rejects the authority of the church. All these sects and cults claiming to be christian and also claiming to being led by the Spirit and preaching the truth and all the while disagreeing with one another. The fact of the matter is that none of them are led by the Spirit. Do you know why I say that? Remember that Truth is unchanging? If that which any of these protestant denominations teaches was indeed truth then I would have to see that being taught in every century before the 16th century. Because truth does not change. It is immutable. But do I see that? No. There is no sola scriptura before Luther. There is no private interpretation of scripture before Luther. Sola scriptura and private interpretation of the scriptures are traditions of men and 16th century men at that.

One more thing here. The canonization of the Bible was done by the Catholic Church as a defense against Gnosticism and its false writings. The intent was to codify those writings that were worthy of being used at Mass. The Bible was to be used in liturgical celebration. Protestants took a liturgical book and profaned it by making it a self study guide to christianity. The Ethiopian eunuch had the church, in the form of Phillip, explain the scriptures to him but the protestants are left to their own devices. As a consequence whenever there are three protestants and two opinions the result is another denomination.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Of course teachers can be wrong, that is clear in the NT

Then we are in agreement…

You agree that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
You agree that the teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such?
You agree that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
Then, you agree that the teachings of The Catholic Church are accountable, no less than those of any other teacher.
And you agree that it is not sound to simply accept with docility whatever any one teaches, you accept accountability and the norming that requires.
The question then becomes WHAT is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for that norming?

Should you suggest the teachings of the self same teacher, then I agree with The Catholic Church that such is a pure circle of self-authentication and that self alone agreeing with self alone is entirely moot to correctness and is a wholly unsound rule/canon. The most sound rule in norming is generally one that is regarded as reliable by all parties, one that is knowable by all and alterable by none, above and beyond and outside all parties. Those that embrace Scripture as such (the Rule of Scripture, aka Sola Scriptura) think Scripture best qualifies. Those that reject this (RCC, LDS, as well as all the cults) reject the Rule of Scripture not because they each have an alternative (none do) but because each rejects accountability (but exclusively and solely in the single case of self alone) and thus norming and ANY norma normans/rule/canon since each declares that each is incapable of being wrong in these matters and thus of course is correct and that norming is therefore moot in the singular, exclusive and sole case of self alone - and so all should rather just accept “with docility” whatever that singular one says as correct. Those that embrace accountability regard this exemption by self of self from accountability as an unsound epistemology of norming.

How is that point moot in our discussion.

Oh, accountability is central and foundational to the issue!

Obviously, ANY rule/canon/norma normans is MOOT if self declares self to be incapable of error and thus correct. You might want to read your Catechism # 87 and “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie for starters. But, is self alone declaring self alone to be correct the most sound way of determining correctness? The Catholic Church says not, and we agree.

So, if you think truth matters, especially doctrine regarding our very souls…
And if you think the teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such…
And if you think The Catholic Church teaches doctrine…
Then The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches as doctrine,
And you have just abandoned the Catholic Church’s insistence and embraced norming.
The question then becomes WHAT is the most sound rule/canon for such norming?
Some regard Scripture as such for us.
The Catholic Church (like all others that rejects the Rule of Scripture) have no alternative for the norming of its doctrines because it rejects the norming of its doctrines, insisting instead that all rather just accept whatever it and it itself alone says “with docility” “as God speaking.”

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

No, we are not. We seem to be agreeing that such interpretations are CAPABLE of being wrong, and thus we are embracing the accountability of such and the need for norming in such. Therefore, you are distancing yourself from the Catholic position and embracing the Protestant one: which is that positions are capable of being incorrect, teachers are to be held accountable, and that norming is necessary in such. The question then becomes what best serves as the norma normans in such? This thread is not about hermeneutics, it’s about accountability.

AND how they regarded teachers as accountable and that teachers CAN be incorrect. This is contrary to the position of The Catholic Church which itself alone insists is incapable of error and is exempt from norming and whatever it and it alone says is simply to be rather accepted as correct “with docility.”

Actually, the quote is about teachings OF THE APOSTLES. It says nothing about the teachings of The Catholic Church and thus is moot to our discussion.

Let us keep clearly in mind that over and over and over in Scripture, we are warned about FALSE teachers - suggesting to me that it’s possible for teachers to be wrong. Jesus praised the Ephesian Christians for doing what The Catholic Church rejects: holding teachers as accountable, testing/norming them, arbitrating the issue, and finding those teachers as false (Rev. 2:2). Never once does Jesus or ANY of the Apostles state that The Catholic Church is infallible/unaccountable or exempt from norming. Read the following: 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. All of which seem to make the insistence of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone at least problematic. .

Each and every reference you gave me reads like a text deploring the “reformation” and the reformers. This is comical, in part, because you read it as being against the Catholic Church. The thing that you are failing to understand is that the Church is not the bishops. It is not the laity. It is not even the Holy Father. It is an amalgamation, a complete whole, the entirety of all of these. Individually any part can be in error (except the Holy Father in very specific circumstances) but as a whole it cannot. The body cannot do anything against the head, Christ. Unless you take the protestant stance where the hand says to the mouth “I dont need you” and separates itself from the body. That is where drastic errors can arise. Is it possible that that hand which removed itself from the body can still dot he will of the head? For a time, yes. But only accidentally. And inevitably it withers and dies. I think it was Chesterton who said that only a dead fish goes with the stream, and I only see the Catholic Church raging against the dark of modern society. Against all of its evils. Other churches rage against some of the shadows, but not the entirety which the Church has set itself against.

I agree with The Catholic Church (at least as taught by my Catholic teachers) that agreement of self with self is not an indication of correctness. It would be the expectation of all that the Bishops of The Catholic Church - all pledged to the teachings of The Catholic Church - would agree with the teachings of The Catholic Church (at least as those Bishops are embraced as correct by The Catholic Church). Self usually agrees with self, but that’s seems remarkably irrelevant to whether self is correct. I agree with the Catholic Church, this would only be a perfect circle of self-authentication. Logic and reason and epistemology aside, history also reveals this. The OO and EO also have Apostolic Succession and yet The Catholic Church disagrees with them both - how can they all be infallible (as a function of Apostolic Succession) since they don’t agree? And, historically, there is no distinction in this “succession” between clergy of The Catholic Church, the Oritental Orthodox Churches, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, Anglican, Lutheran, and well beyond - they ALL have the rubric that only bishops may ordain, thus all have EXACTLY the same “Apostolic Succession” as a historical reality (even though The Catholic Church may declare some non-authorized, but that in NO SENSE removes the HISTORICAL reality that all are a succession going back to the Apostles). Yet, not all of these agree, so how can such succession mandate infalliblity/unaccountability and the incapablility of error?

Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls? Yes
Do you think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what is taught as such?Yes
Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?yes
IF so, then you embrace that The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches as doctrine - no less than any and all others. YES
And thus, you desert the requirment of The Catholic Church alone that it alone be exempt from such and whatever it alone teaches just rather be accepted “with docility” No. Docility means to make yourself teachable. Not to accept without question. The Church is accountable to God, the Holy Spirit, its very head. How can the Holy Spirit do anything counter to the will of God?
And you have embraced norming. But NOT sola scriptura.
The issue then becomes WHAT is the most sound norma normans for the norming of the doctrines among us?
THAT is the singular issue of this thread. No its not. The issue of this thread is why SS, where did it come from, and what proofs do you have of its validity?

FSC

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Oh, accountability is central and foundational to the issue!
So when Christ told his Apostles that he would send them another paraclete to guide them in all truth forever what does that mean? It can only mean that the Holy Spirit would be the guide of the Apostles and their descendants, headed by Peter, the rock, upon which Christ built his Church.
Obviously, ANY rule/canon/norma normans is MOOT if self declares self to be incapable of error and thus correct. You might want to read your Catechism # 87 and “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie for starters. But, is self alone declaring self alone to be correct the most sound way of determining correctness? The Catholic Church says not, and we agree.

Ok, post YOUR definition of docility. Since you seem to be a dog with a bone on this, tell us what YOU think it means and why you take such umbrage against being docile.

So, if you think truth matters, especially doctrine regarding our very souls…
And if you think the teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such…
And if you think The Catholic Church teaches doctrine…
Then The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches as doctrine,
And you have just abandoned the Catholic Church’s insistence and embraced norming.
The question then becomes WHAT is the most sound rule/canon for such norming?
Some regard Scripture as such for us.
The Catholic Church (like all others that rejects the Rule of Scripture) have no alternative for the norming of its doctrines because it rejects the norming of its doctrines, insisting instead that all rather just accept whatever it and it itself alone says “with docility” “as God speaking.”
.

Seriously, I dont think that you have more than a surface understanding of the docility spoken of in the CCC. If all you ever see of the Church is the surface you are missing the entire WORLD of the Catholic Church. If you never dive into the ocean you will never understand what it truly is. To you the ocean will forever be a barrier, a hard and cruel mistress, and a mystery that can only induce fear.

FSC

 

[IronHammer]

AmericanJosiah,

I would very much appreciate an answer to my post earlier. I think everyone here (including me) deserves an answer to these crucial questions. After all, if we are to follow SS, how can we know that Jesus wants us to?

Anything and everything on earth (and in Heaven) is established by an authority of some kind. Who, then, had the authority to establish SS as the “norma normans”? And, by extension, what proof do we have that said authority established SS as the sole rule of faith?

 

[simspt]

Oh, accountability is central and foundational to the issue!

Obviously, ANY rule/canon/norma normans is MOOT if self declares self to be incapable of error and thus correct. You might want to read your Catechism # 87 and “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie for starters. But, is self alone declaring self alone to be correct the most sound way of determining correctness? The Catholic Church says not, and we agree.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Josiah
What do you do when you diagree with someone over a teaching or doctrine who holds the same view you do rejecting succession and authority?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah
What do you do when you diagree with someone over a teaching or doctrine who holds the same view you do rejecting succession and authority?

I would embrace God as the Authority - and look to His Scripture as the rule/canon.

What do you do when you disagree with a Mormon, who embraces the same epistemology you do, the same rejection of the Rule of Scripture and accountability, the same insistence on apostolic succession (albeit via Smith, not Peter)? After all, the LDS insists that JESUS founded IT and thus IT is the sole authority, sole arbiter, infallible and unaccountable - in spite of having exactly the same substantiation for all this that the RCC does (nothing)? I’m NOT evaluating the claim of either, only trying to determine how YOU “break” the issue of two who each insist: “I’m right so I’m right so there - just accept it with docility cuz Jesus said I’m infallible!” I wonder if you are supporting or rejecting the epistemology of self exempting self from accountability as the best way of determining if that self is correct?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Unless you take the protestant stance where the hand says to the mouth “I dont need you” and separates itself from the body. That is where drastic errors can arise. Is it possible that that hand which removed itself from the body can still dot he will of the head?

Moot to the issue here of accountability and norming, but I see this as the exact opposite. The Catholic Church has said, “I don’t need you, all I need is me.” I don’t need the church, I don’t need accountability, I don’t need anything. I’m the all-in-all; it’s just Jesus and ME."

But let’s return to the issue of accountability and norming…

Obviously, ANY rule/canon/norma normans is MOOT if self alone declares self alone to be incapable of error and thus correct. You might want to read your Catechism # 87 and “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie for starters. But, is self alone declaring self alone to be correct the most sound way of determining correctness? The Catholic Church says not, and we agree.

So, if you think truth matters, especially doctrine regarding our very souls…
And if you think the teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such…
And if you think The Catholic Church teaches doctrine…
Then The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches as doctrine,
And you have just abandoned the Catholic Church’s insistence and embraced norming.
The question then becomes WHAT is the most sound rule/canon for such norming?
Some regard Scripture as such for us.
The Catholic Church (like all others that rejects the Rule of Scripture) have no alternative for the norming of its doctrines because it rejects the norming of its doctrines, insisting instead that all rather just accept whatever it and it itself alone says “with docility” “as God speaking.”

.

 

[guanophore]

Apostolic Succession is moot to WHAT is the most sound norma normans in the evaluation of the doctrines among us.

You are echoing the position of your spiritual forebears, the Reformers. They decided that the way Christ had set up the Church was not working to their satisfaction, and that they could improve on His model. Such “improvements” are made almost daily, which is why we have such splintering in Christendom today.

uphold the teachings of the bishops of The Catholic Church as the “rule” for the teachings of The Catholic Church would just be a perfect circle of self-authentication, which is why The Catholic Church rejects that as the norma normans.

The Catholic church is the Source of the norma normans, Josiah.

The Teachings of the church were placed in her by Christ, not by the bishops. The bishops received the teachings, and took vows to protect, preserve, and promulgate them, but the Teachings belong to God.

self is not the most sound rule/canon for the norming of the teachings of self. Self will always agree with self, but that’s entirely unrelated to the issue of whether self is correct.

This is why SS is counterproductive. When a person reads scripture in separation from the Apostolic Teaching, such a person becomes their own authority. Their own perception and understanding of what they are reading become their norma normans.

The issue here is accountability for what is taught as doctrine, including by The Catholic Church.

At least we can agree on something! I think you are confusing something, though. You seem to be equating the Teaching, which is from Christ, with the fallible teachers who sometimes do a poor job of living and representing it.

And if such is embraced (and we all realize, as a Catholic you are not so permitted by The Catholic Church),

I am not sure how you came to embrace these falsehoods. I hope that, through your participation on CAF, you will come to find that these ideas are not true. Catholics are required to embrace accountability. I will grant you that some of them do fail in this obligation, as I have myself, but that does not change the facts, or the standards. Fallible men are not capable of defiling the things of God, except for themselves. Accountability exists because Jesus set it up that way. Nothing a faithless Catholic, or someone who has embraced falsehoods can do to make that go away. You may convince yourself in your own mind that it does not exist, but the only person that will affect is you,a nd the foolish who follow after you. If a blind man is leading the blind, both will fall into the pit.

then you have embrace norming and the question becomes WHAT is the most sound norma normans for this?

Actually, there is no question for a Catholic. It is one of the foundations of our faith that we accept “with docility” what Christ has mandated. That is why the Teaching Authority that He set up is the only one that is valid for us.

The Catholic Church does NOT embrace self as the most sound rule/canon for this norming (such would be absurd), it doesn’t accept ANY norma normans (at least vis-a-vis the doctrines of itself) since it doesn’t accept accountability for those doctrines (and thus norming and all aspects of such, including WHATEVER might serve as the norma normans),

You really give the impression of a man who has been hurt by someone who has departed from the Catholic Teaching, and has hurt you deeply. Perhaps someone claiming to be Catholic wounded you, and was never held accoutable for their actions?

rather, it alone requires that all just accept whatever it alone says “with docility.”

You have misunderstood the Catechism, Josiah.

All OTHERS are fully accountable - right here, right now - and it has a rule/canon for the norming of what ALL OTHERS teach, but what IT and IT itself alone teaches is simply to be accepted as correct cuz it is.

I think that you have missed the point of the scriptural directive “study to show thyself approved”. Children are taught the faith in a passive sense. Once a child grows up, he is expected to learn the reasons for his faith. This is called catechism, or the faithful echoing forth of the Apostolic Teaching. Some Catholics never take on their responsibility to learn their faith. Perhaps you are one of these?

The same is true for all that reject Sola Scriptura (LDS as well as all cults, for example).

The Church is duty bound to reject all hersies, such as SS. Scripture is normative for the church in this activity. Scripture itself refutes SS.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Oh, accountability is central and foundational to the issue!

Obviously, ANY rule/canon/norma normans is MOOT if self declares self to be incapable of error and thus correct. You might want to read your Catechism # 87 and “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie for starters. But, is self alone declaring self alone to be correct the most sound way of determining correctness? The Catholic Church says not, and we agree.

So, if you think truth matters, especially doctrine regarding our very souls…
And if you think the teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such…
And if you think The Catholic Church teaches doctrine…
Then The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches as doctrine,
And you have just abandoned the Catholic Church’s insistence and embraced norming.
The question then becomes WHAT is the most sound rule/canon for such norming?
Some regard Scripture as such for us.
The Catholic Church (like all others that rejects the Rule of Scripture) have no alternative for the norming of its doctrines because it rejects the norming of its doctrines, insisting instead that all rather just accept whatever it and it itself alone says “with docility” “as God speaking.”

.

So when Christ told his Apostles that he would send them another paraclete to guide them in all truth forever what does that mean? It can only mean that the Holy Spirit would be the guide of the Apostles and their descendants, headed by Peter, the rock, upon which Christ built his Church.

1. It means that the Holy Spirit would teach. Now, where do you find the support that students are infallible/unaccountable? Did God teach Adam and Eve? Do you think He did so inerrantly, truthfully? Then, reading Genesis Chapter 3, where is your substantiation that it was IMPOSSIBLE for Adam and Eve to be less than infallible students? And that God held his students as UNACCOUNTABLE for whatever was said or done?
2. Where does the verse say anything about The Catholic Church - particularly, exclusively, perpetually? Where does the verse mention “successors?” Where does it mention infallible and unaccountable? All this is FOUNDATIONAL to the claim of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone as it attempts to justify why The Catholic Church alone is exempt from accountability and norming.

.

 

[guanophore]

1. The Catholic Church wrote not a single letter of Scripture.

I am sure that there is some reason it is important for you to believe this. However, the writers of the NT were all Catholic Christians. The Catholic Church preserved their writings, copied them,collected them, and in 382 promulgated them as the NT. There is nothing about the Bible in front of you that is not a product of the Catholic Church, except for the books that are missing because they were removed by reformers.

I disagree with you and agree with The Catholic Church in this matter. “The Handbook of the Catholic Faith” page 136 states, “The Bible is the very word of God and no greater credence exists. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God himself is the Author of the Bible. God guided the penmen to write as He wished so that it is His own.”

Indeed!

And in the case of the NT, the men who were moved by God to write were all Catholics.

“The Bible is authoritative because of its Author.” Yes, The Catholic Church officially embraced the Scriptures as such for itself in a formal manner, just as nearly all other denominations are done, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with Scripture or the embrace of it;

The Catholic Church is not a denomination. The Catholic Church is that which was founded by Christ, from which all others are denominated.

And yes it does have everything to do with the embrace of scripture. The Catholic Church embraced those 27 books for the NT because they reflected Catholic Sacred Tradition (the Teaching of the Apostles). There were 400+ books floating about at the time, all claiming to be of the inspiration of God. Some were even being read during Church that did not later make it into the canon.

acknowledging is not related to producing or creating. Jesus didn’t need The Catholic Church to do anything

This is indeed a true statement. He chose to found a Church, and chose to work in and through that Church by His spirit to bring salvation to the world. How can one produce and create scripture without acknowledging it? To me, they seem inseparable. Do you think that St. Paul was some sort of automaton when he wrote? Do you think there is nothing of his humanity in his letters?

as He referred - specifically and by name - to Scripture some 22 times, or as He used such normatively some 50 times (a process called Sola Scriptura).

No, referring to scripture, and holding it as authoritative is NOT SS. Jesus IS the authority, and the Scriptures testify to HIM. Scripture cannot wield authority,because this activity requires a person. I would think you of all people would know this. Scripture cannot be held accoutable for action, which is an essential aspect of authority.

Then you agree that interpretations can be incorrect! That means that such is accountable.

Absolutely.

In so declaring, you reject the insistence of The Catholic Church as it and it itself exclusively designates it and it itself exclusively as the sole interpreter of Scripture and declares self as unaccountable for such since self alone declares self alone to be INCAPABLE of error in this regard (officially anyway) and thus self alone declares self alone as exempt from norming.

NO, because this is not the position of the Church, and because the authentification comes from God, not men.

This is the root of our disagreement. The Catholic Church insisting that the most sound way to determine the correctness of a position is for self alone to declare self alone to be correct - exempting self alone from accountability (as long as that self is The Catholic Church exclusively, insists The Catholic Church exclusively).

It appears that you are suffering from a deficient understanding of the nature of “church”. The Church has Christ as her Head, and the HS as her Soul. It is these divine elements that make her infallible, not her human components.