Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura

[AmericanJosiah]

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

Your denomination disagrees. The Handbook of The Catholic Faith, page 136: “The Bible is the very word of God, and no greater assurance of credence is possible. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God himself is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished.” “The Bible is Authoritative because the Author, God, is authoritative.”

Jesus refered to Scripture - specifically by that term, 22 times: before even The Catholic Church itself claims (with zero substantiation) to have come into existence; so clearly Jesus doesn’t agree that The Catholic Church is the source of Scripture. The Israelities at Mount Sinai didn’t agree with you, either.

The Teachings of the church were placed in her by Christ

So it alone claims. No one denies that anyone can claim anything. But do you think that truth matters? Do you think it matters if the claim is true - whether it comes from the LDS or RCC or any other?

Friend, I realize that you make an act of faith in laying aside accountability in the singular case of The Catholic Church exclusively, and that’s not an issue here. I will afford you EXACTLY the same respect for your act of faith in this regard as you yourself afford to the Mormon for the exact same act of faith in the exact same matter. Fair enough? I"m sure you think so. But acts of faith is not the issue here, accountability is. The Catholic Church has shown little hesitatation to declare persons “wrong” even though they embraced the same act of faith in a teacher that just accepts whatever that one says as correct.

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.

But often times, the teachings of The Catholic Church are exclusive to it and it itself alone. Yes, OBVIOUSLY, it and it itself alone can claim that such “comes from Christ” - just as the LDS does and just as all the cults do - no one denies that one CAN do this; the question is: is it correct? You may simply CHOOSE to accept it with docility, just as our Mormon friends do - and I’m not disputing ANY such pure act of faith. I’m just discussing the epistemology of what you are defending as the most sound way to determine who among us is correct.

Catholics are required to embrace accountability.

YES! Actually, The Catholic Church passionately insists on accountability for ALL OTHERS. It just rejects it for itself.

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.

Of course, as we all know, Jesus never said anything about The Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church claims all this for itself.

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.

When did The Catholic Church loose this humility and ability to learn? The willingness to be corrected?

Do you have the “reasons” why the best way to determine correctness is for self alone to declare self alone to be incapable of error, infallible, exempt from accountability?

Jesus never mentioned The Catholic Church or said it and it itself exclusively is the sole interpreter or infallible or unaccountable. But He did warn us about false teachers, antichrists and those that would lead many astray. He did praise the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, and for finding them false. Yes, we do read that God taught/lead Adam and Eve - but even in a perfect world (not the fallen one we live in) were they THUS infallible students and infallible followers? Did God regard them as unaccountable for whatever they did/said? Where is this justification that The Catholic Church - specifically, particularly, perpetually and exclusively - is infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, and whatever it and it itself exclusively says is just to be accepted with docility?

Scripture is normative for the church in this activity. Scripture itself refutes SS.

So, when the Israelites regarded the Ten Commandments as normative in morality, they were refuting those Ten Commandments? When Jesus used Scripture normatively some 50 times, He was doing what Scripture forbids? Where did the Israelities reject The Ten Commandments as normative and instead look to The Catholic Church as the infallible/unaccountable teacher - docilicly accepting what IT said rather than looking to those first Scriptuers? Forgetting the 50 times Jesus used Sola Scriptura, the 22 times He specifically, by name, refers to “the Scriptures” (400-1500 years before The Catholic Church told Him what the Scriptures are), just ignoring that, when did He reference The Catholic Church as normative instead? Where is this Scriptural support for The Catholic Church as the embraced norma normans?

.

 

[IronHammer]

AmericanJosiah,

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?

You have responded to many other posts today but not to these simple questions. I am beginning to think you are dodging.

This should be simple. By what authority must we follow Sola Scriptura?

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

.

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.

.

There was no Church, per se, yet, as Christ himself was still alive and there was no requirement for an authoritative body, “The wedding guests cannot fast while the Bridegroom is present” and all that.

It never says infallible and unaccountable. We are all accountable for those things we teach that are counter to the teachings of Christ. But:

John 14:
16 And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. 17 The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you. 19 Yet a little while: and the world seeth me no more. But you see me: because I live, and you shall live. 20 In that day you shall know, that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.

The paraclete will abide with the apostles FOREVER, the spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive (yet the apostles do) [and] he shall abide with you and shall be in you.

If you take this paraclete to be the Holy Spirit, and you see the laying on of hands of the Bishops in the Bible, then that Holy Spirit has quite clearly been passed down to all licitly ordained priests of an apostolic Church. The issue here is not with the various apostolic Churches, it is with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and its lack of evidence.

This thread is not a place for you to vent your frustrations against the Church, but a place to show your defense of SS, if one can be mounted.

If SS is so rock-solid that it cannot be refuted, then prove it to us. Show us your evidence for it, not your evidence against us. Proving I am wrong in my fervent faith in Christ through the CC (if you can) will NOT prove YOUR fervent belief in SS as true.

FSC

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

AmericanJosiah,

You have responded to many other posts today but not to these simple questions. I am beginning to think you are dodging.

This should be simple. By what authority must we follow Sola Scriptura?

X2

 

[AmericanJosiah]

By what authority must we follow Sola Scriptura?

No one and no thing mandates the use of Scripture as the norma normans; nor has any said such is the case. It is simply embraced as the most sound rule/canon for that purpose. Again, none that reject the Rule of Scripture (RCC, LDS, as well as all the cults) have no alternative (better or worse) but simply each exempts each alone from accountability and thus norming by ANY norma normans since each proclaims each alone to be incapable of error and infallible, and replaces this issue with the requirement that all just rather accept with docility whatever that self alone so says.

The most sound norma normans is generally regarded in epistemology to be the most objective, knowable and unalterable by all parties; with an embrace as reliable for such norming by all parties. Some believe the Scripture best qualifies. It is regarded by us as reliable (in fact, often as inerrant), it is knowable by all and alterable by none (we all can see and read the words of Romans 3:23 - none can change them). This, we regard, is a better norma normans than self alone declaring that self alone is correct so self alone is. As has been noted here, there is more than one who has appointed self as the sole interpreter (read where The Catholic Church does this in CCC 85), and there is more than one position among us. So, WHAT best serves as the rule/canon for the norming of these positions? OF COURSE, if truth doesn’t matter then this issue is moot. And OF COURSE, if you just want to perform an act of faith and just docilicly accept the requirement of a teacher that that teacher exclusively is infallible/unaccountable then this issue is moot (whether of a Mormon or whatever). But if truth matters to you (especially doctrine concerning our very souls), if you regard the teachers of doctrine as accountable for what they teach as such (and you regard The Catholic Church as teaching doctrine), then the issue is key: WHAT is the most sound norma normans for this norming of positions?

Here is the position of The Catholic Church on Scripture: “The Bible is the very word of God and no greater credence is possible. The Bible is inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished.” “The Bible is Authoritative because the Author - who is God - is Authoritative.” (The Handbook of The Catholic Faith page 136). Protestants tend to agree. Catholics reject that self is correct because self declares that self is. Protestants tend to agree (even if that self is The Catholic Church).

Jesus used Scripture normatively (“Sola Scriptura”) some 50 times, referring to such specificly by the term “Scripture” some 22 times (note: 400 to 1500 years before The Catholic Church told Jesus or His audience what is and is not “Scripture”). He never used The Catholic Church as such (or even so much as mentioned it). Jesus repeatedly warned us of false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray - all suggesting accountability - and never once exempted The Catholic Church exclusively from this. Jesus praised the Ephesian Christians for regarding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, and for finding them false; He did NOT praise them for accepting whatever they were told “with docility” (Rev. 2:22). Scripture after Scripture speaks of the accountability of teachers but never once says that The Catholic Chruch is exempt. The Catholic Church speaks MUCH of accountability for all others - but reverses itself 180 degress when addressing itself; it speaks MUCH of docilicity of all to it but nothing about what it is docilic toward; MUCH about how all OTHERS are fully, wholly accountable right here and right now but says it and it itself alone is accountable only to God.

Thank you.

Pax.

• Josiah

.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

No one and no thing mandates the use of Scripture as the norma normans; nor has any said such is the case. It is simply embraced as the most sound rule/canon for that purpose. Again, none that reject the Rule of Scripture (RCC, LDS, as well as all the cults) have no alternative (better or worse) but simply each exempts each alone from accountability and thus norming by ANY norma normans since each proclaims each alone to be incapable of error and infallible, and replaces this issue with the requirement that all just rather accept with docility whatever that self alone so says.

The most sound norma normans is generally regarded in epistemology to be the most objective, knowable and unalterable by all parties; with an embrace as reliable for such norming by all parties. Some believe the Scripture best qualifies. It is regarded by us as reliable (in fact, often as inerrant), it is knowable by all and alterable by none (we all can see and read the words of Romans 3:23 - none can change them). This, we regard, is a better norma normans than self alone declaring that self alone is correct so self alone is. As has been noted here, there is more than one who has appointed self as the sole interpreter (read where The Catholic Church does this in CCC 85), and there is more than one position among us. So, WHAT best serves as the rule/canon for the norming of these positions? OF COURSE, if truth doesn’t matter then this issue is moot. And OF COURSE, if you just want to perform an act of faith and just docilicly accept the requirement of a teacher that that teacher exclusively is infallible/unaccountable then this issue is moot (whether of a Mormon or whatever). But if truth matters to you (especially doctrine concerning our very souls), if you regard the teachers of doctrine as accountable for what they teach as such (and you regard The Catholic Church as teaching doctrine), then the issue is key: WHAT is the most sound norma normans for this norming of positions?

Here is the position of The Catholic Church on Scripture: “The Bible is the very word of God and no greater credence is possible. The Bible is inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished.” “The Bible is Authoritative because the Author - who is God - is Authoritative.” (The Handbook of The Catholic Faith page 136). Protestants tend to agree. Catholics reject that self is correct because self declares that self is. Protestants tend to agree (even if that self is The Catholic Church).

Jesus used Scripture normatively (“Sola Scriptura”) some 50 times, referring to such specificly by the term “Scripture” some 22 times (note: 400 to 1500 years before The Catholic Church told Jesus or His audience what is and is not “Scripture”). He never used The Catholic Church as such (or even so much as mentioned it). Jesus repeatedly warned us of false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray - all suggesting accountability - and never once exempted The Catholic Church exclusively from this. Jesus praised the Ephesian Christians for regarding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, and for finding them false; He did NOT praise them for accepting whatever they were told “with docility” (Rev. 2:22). Scripture after Scripture speaks of the accountability of teachers but never once says that The Catholic Chruch is exempt. The Catholic Church speaks MUCH of accountability for all others - but reverses itself 180 degress when addressing itself; it speaks MUCH of docilicity of all to it but nothing about what it is docilic toward; MUCH about how all OTHERS are fully, wholly accountable right here and right now but says it and it itself alone is accountable only to God.
.

Ahem… Your repeated reference to Christ referring to scriptures has no bearing on your decision to use Sola Scriptura as a rule. Please give your reasons for using SS, whatever they may be. Even “'Cause I darn well feel like it, ok bub?” would be acceptable.

Scripture references would be nice, but not ABSOLUTELY necessary.

FSC

 

[IronHammer]

No one and no thing mandates the use of Scripture as the norma normans; nor has any said such is the case.

I see no authority binding us to use scripture alone, since Jesus didn’t tell us to.

I DO see the keys Jesus gave to Peter to guide us in faith and morals as “Jesus speaking”.
I DO see the authority Jesus gave to his apostles to forgive men’s sins and to establish authority for him on earth (whatsover ye bind on earth, etc …)
I DO see historically verifiable succession of bishops and Popes from the very beginning.
I DO see that same Church dating back to the time of the Apostles and never once wavering in it’s faithfulness in teaching the Good News of Jesus Christ.
I DO see a visible, tangible family of believers following the teachings of Christ as guarded and taught by the Church.

Sola Scriptura seems to me to merely be an excuse not to follow the Church. If ever there was a reason not to follow Holy Mother Church established by Jesus, because you made the grave mistake of doubting His protection of Her, then Sola Scriptura would be the only possible rational way to do it. But it falls way, way short because you are holding onto one leg of a three legged stool. It just wasn’t meant to be that way, my friend.

 

[guanophore]

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.

This is exactly what the TEaching Authority appointed by Christ does!

 Therefore, you are distancing yourself from the Catholic position and embracing the Protestant one:  which is that positions are capable of being incorrect,

What makes you think that the Catholic position is otherwise? The reason interpretation of scripture must be done in the light of Aposotlic Teaching is BECAUSE every individual that reads it is 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.

You sound like a person who has been wounded by someone who departed from the Apostolic Teaching and was never held accountable.

AND how they regarded teachers as accountable and that teachers CAN be incorrect. This is contrary to the position of The Catholic

No, it is not. This statement seems to reflect what little you know about the Catholic position.

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.”

Noriming is for individuals. The Apostolic Teaching, which is reflected in the Scripture is part of that norming. For some reason, you are rebelling against the Authority appointed by Christ. It is likely that you have a good reason for it.

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.

The Teaching of the Apostles IS the teaching of the Church. There is no difference between the two.

 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.

Yes, of course. It is not the TEACHING (doctrine) that is the problem, though, but the ones presenting it, or failing to do so.

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).

The Ephesian Christians were Catholic, and they did that because it is the Catholic thing to do. Those are the instructions we received from the Apostles, that have been preserved in the Sacred Tradition. The Church is the arbiter. Scripture cannot “arbitrate” because this activity requires persons.

 Never once does Jesus or ANY of the Apostles state that The Catholic Church is infallible/unaccountable or exempt from norming.

No, indeed, this only exists in your fantasy.

The Catholic Church, founded by Christ, and described as Catholic in the NT and in the early Fathers is infallible because of her divine elments. God does not need to be held accountable to us, but we to Him. The norms from the Church come from God.

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.

I think it seems that way to you because you don’t realize these verses are written by Catholics, for Catholics.

The scripture is not to be separated from the Church through which it was produced.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I see no authority binding us to use scripture alone, since Jesus didn’t tell us to.

Although Jesus used Sola Scriptura and never once regarded The Catholic Church as… anything at all.

I DO see the keys Jesus gave to Peter to guide us in faith and morals as “Jesus speaking”.

1. Peter was/is not The Catholic Church.
2. Peter was never described as infallible or unaccountable (in fact, Jesus once called him “Satan” didn’t He? Didn’t He spend a LOT of time correcting Peter - indicating that Peter was accountable?

I DO see the authority Jesus gave to his apostles to forgive men’s sins and to establish authority for him on earth (whatsover ye bind on earth, etc …)

Moot to any issue here.

Do you believe that you may forgive sins? If not, do you include the petition in the Lord’s Prayer, “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us?”

I DO see historically verifiable succession of bishops and Popes from the very beginning.

Moot to any issue in this thread…

Where is any successor of any Apostle described by Jesus as infallible/unaccountable?

Actually, no clergy from ANY denomination can trace his “chain of ordinations” back to the Apostles since there are virtually no contemporary records of ordainations prior to the 4th century.

Apostolic Succession does not insure infallibility since even The Catholic Church recognizes the sucession in the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches and yet those churches are WRONG according to The Catholic Church, thus, by it’s own insistence, Apostolic Succession - even if any in the RCC could prove such - is moot to the issue of correctness.

If ever there was a reason not to follow Holy Mother Church established by Jesus, because you made the grave mistake of doubting His protection of Her, then Sola Scriptura would be **the only possible rational way **to do it. But it falls way, way short because you are holding onto one leg of a three legged stool. It just wasn’t meant to be that way, my friend.

Except, as we all know, Jesus never authorized The Catholic Church to do anything.
As we all know, Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything.
Jesus so much as never even MENTIONED it.
For anything. About anything. Concerning anything. At any time. About anything.
Jesus never said that ANY among us is to be regarded as infallible/unacccountable.

The Three-legged-Stool is the norm for OTHER teachers, not for The Catholic Church. It would be purely a circle of self-authentication if it were, thus The Catholic Church rejects it for such. Self agreeing with self as determined by self has no relation whatsoever to self being correct, The Catholic Church agrees.

Thus, I direct you to what you called “The only possible rational way.”

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Your repeated reference to Christ referring to scriptures has no bearing on your decision to use Sola Scriptura as a rule.

Jesus using thus some 50 times normatively is using Scripture normatively (known as Sola Scriptura). His reference specificly - by name - to “Scripture” also reveals that neither He nor His audience needed The Catholic Church to “create” Scripture (since it didn’t even exist at the time).

Please give your reasons for using SS, whatever they may be

1. Scripture indicates that teachers are accountable. ** 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**. Jesus warns us of false teachers, He praises the Ephesian Christians for regarding teachers as accountable, for arbitrating/testing them and for declaring them false. All this suggests that teachers of doctrine are accountable, thus I find the Catholic position that The Catholic Church’s insistence that The Catholic Church - particularly, exclusively, perpetually - is infallible/unaccountable and is just to be accepted “with docility” to be biblically baseless and problematic.
2. As all have admitted here, there is more than one position among us. In some cases, not all of these can be true. If truth matters to you, then it matters which of these positions is correct - which requires they be held as accountable and thus that they be held up to norming. Thus, the demand of The Catholic Church for The Catholic Church in CCC 87, etc., must be rejected. And the question becomes WHAT best serves as the norma normans for the doctrines among us. In epistemology, the most sound rule/canon/norma normans is what is most objective and knowable and unalterable by all parties involved (including The Catholic Church), what is regarded as reliable for this purpose (“inerrant” would be ideal, the inscripturated words of God would be perfect!). Some think Scripture best qualifies (the Rule of Scripture, aka Sola Scriptura). Those that reject this (RCC, LDS, all the cults) do so NOT because each has a better rule/canon (none do) but because each rejects accountability in the sole, exclusive, singular case of it and it itself alone, each alone insisting that each alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong and thus just is right cuz it is - making accountability/norming moot and suggesting that all just lay aside the whole issue and rather just accept that whatever self alone says MUST be right cuz it is and just accept that with docility. Here’s just a PARTIAL list of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura): Matt 21:42 Matt 22:29, Matt 26:54, Matt 26:56, Matt 2:5, Matt 4:4l, Matt 4:6, Matt 4:7l, Matt 4:10, Matt 11:10, Matt 21:13, Matt 26:24, Matt 27:37, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 4:17, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25, John 19:20, John 20:30, John 20:31, John 21:25. Now, if Jesus using it isn’t good enough for you, here are some examples of Apostles using it, just a few of the examples: **Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11. Acts 8:24, Acts 18:28, Acts 1:29. Acts 7:42, Acts 13:29, Acts 13:33, Acts 15:15, Acts 23:5, Acts 24:14, , Acts 13:46, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 26:26, Romans 1:17, Romans 2:24, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:10, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:23, Romans 8:36, Romans 9:13, Romans 10:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:26, Romans 12:19, Romans 14:11, Romans 15:3, Romans 15:9, Romans 15:21, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 Cor. 3:19 , 1 Cor. 4:6, 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Cor. 9;10, 1 Cor. 10:7, 1 Cor. 10:10, 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Cor. 15: 54, 2 Cor. 4:13, 2 Cor. 8:15, 2 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, Gal. 3:10, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:22, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16 ** There are more, of course. Space doesn’t allow all the OT examples. Now, compare that to the number of times Jesus and the Apostles used The Catholic Church normatively (or even mentioned it - for anything, as anything, in any regard, for anything).
3. It is the only normative praxis employed by Christ, whereas He never once so much as even MENTIONED The Catholic Church, much less described thus as the norm for itself or any other or describing thus particularly and exclusively and perpetually as infallible, unaccountable, exempt from norming and whatever it and it itself alone says is just to be accepted with docility.

 

[Philthy]

No one and no thing mandates the use of Scripture as the norma normans; nor has any said such is the case.

Interesting…

It is simply embraced as the most sound rule/canon for that purpose.

And what is the standard by which embracing it has been judged as resulting in the truth?? How, exactly, and when, exactly, did it become “embraced” as the most sound rule for the stated purpose?

Again, none that reject the Rule of Scripture (RCC, LDS, as well as all the cults) have no alternative (better or worse) but simply each exempts each alone from accountability

You have never once explained how there is any accountability when one embraces the Rule of Scripture. You repeatedly claim that the CC exempts themselves from accountability (I disagree), but you never seem to articulate how accepting the Rule of Scripture is actually a step towards greater accountability. Care to share that info with us now??
In addition, you never quite articulate how we are to arrive at a Rule of Scripture. In fact, if memory serves correct you declined to define what Scripture even is when given the opportunity.

thus norming by ANY norma normans since each proclaims each alone to be incapable of error and infallible, and replaces this issue with the requirement that all just rather accept with docility whatever that self alone so says.

What is your proposal other than having this system where there is a final authority??

The most sound norma normans is generally regarded in epistemology to be the most objective, knowable and unalterable by all parties; with an embrace as reliable for such norming by all parties.

Sounds like an infallible declaration to me!

Some believe the Scripture best qualifies. It is regarded by us as reliable (in fact, often as inerrant), it is knowable by all and alterable by none (we all can see and read the words of Romans 3:23 - none can change them).

Im sorry this is fantasy. The diversity of doctrinal belief among Protestants who use Scripture as their norma normans proves this. I dont care what “some believe”, it is a fact that using Scripture as the rule results in disunity of doctrine and absolutely no accountability except to self interpreting Scripture. Do you disagree? Yes or No will suffice.

This, we regard, is a better norma normans than self alone declaring that self alone is correct so self alone is.

I think you misrepresent the CC. The CC listens to all, considers all and ultimately trusts in the guidance of the HS as promised by our Lord. And, as I have said repeatedly, what is the alternative? Who in your system, exactly, represents the authoritative understanding of the Rule of Scripture? How does this authority make known an infallible truth of the Rule of Scripture?

But if truth matters to you (especially doctrine concerning our very souls), if you regard the teachers of doctrine as accountable for what they teach as such (and you regard The Catholic Church as teaching doctrine), then the issue is key: WHAT is the most sound norma normans for this norming of positions?

What has history shown the answer to this question to be? Is it Scripture as the Rule or is it the CC guided by the Holy Spirit? If it is the former, then the “truth” seems to change with each generation. The CC has remained relatively stable and reliable.

Blessings!

 

[guanophore]

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.

The error in your conclusion comes from an error in the presumption. You are presuming that it was the Bishops that created the Catholic Teaching. Since your premise is false, you reach a false conclusion.

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,

You have it backwards. The Orthodox disagree with Catholics, and to the extent that they do so, they depart from the Apostolic Traditions. Individuals who depart from the Teachings are not protected by the gift of infallibility. Neither are whole congregations that do so. The Gift is for the Church, and Church is defined by unity with the Teaching,a nd the Succession.

 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?

They may agree that only bishops can ordain, but once a bishop breaks unity with the succession, the ordination is no longer valid. After separating from unity, one invalid ordiniation upon another does not create “succession”. Succession is, by definition, valid. Unity is based upon adherance to the Truth. Separation from the Truth creates disunity. An example of invalidity is found in Rev. 2:2

‘I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.’

Claiming to be an Apostle does not make it so, and claiming one is validly ordained does not make it so.

Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?

Absolutely. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Do you think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what is taught as such?

Absolutely.

“Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” James 3:1

Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?

The very finest.

IF so, then you embrace that The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches as doctrine - no less than any and all others.

You are mixing up your subjects again. The Church cannot teach error. The people who are members of the Church can, and do. All teachers are held accountable for what they teach. You will be held accountable for promoting falsehoods about the Church here on CAF.

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”

Perhaps the time will come when you are able to distinguish the divine from the human, and you will be able to recognize that the divine cannot err.

And you have embraced norming.

Indeed, when we accept the Teaching Authority appointed by Him, and His very great and precious promises that the HS will lead us into all truth, we live by the norms He creates, rather than our own.

The issue then becomes WHAT is the most sound norma normans for the norming of the doctrines among us?

It is not an issue for Catholics, Josiah, since we have accepted the norms as Jesus set them up.

THAT is the singular issue of this thread.

I suspect you have some other issues, of which this one is only a disguise.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

And what is the standard by which embracing it has been judged as resulting in the truth??

We regard it as truth, in fact, as inerrant - the very inscripturated words of God.

Here’s what The Catholic Church says, “The Bible is the very Word of God. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished.” “The Bible is Authoritative because its Author - who is God - is Authoritative.” (The Handbook of The Catholic Faith).

Now, no rule (no matter how true) insures that all will be true. The Rule of Law may establish that the speed limit is 45 MPH but that does not make you INCAPABLE of driving faster than that, but it DOES establish the rule/canon for the norming of your driving in that regard.

I don’t deny that ARBITRATION may not be perfect (but then we can’t talk about arbitration in this thread). A perfect norm does not necessitate perfection in word or deed (I refer you again to Genesis Chapter 3). But, where I disagree with you, is that referrable to a rule/canon is for each defendant to declare self alone to be INCAPABLE of error and thus exempt from accountability and whatever that self alone says is rather to simply be accepted “with docility” “as God speaking.”

How, exactly, and when, exactly, did it become “embraced” as the most sound rule for the stated purpose?

I don’t know. I would suspect at Mount Sinai. When Moses came down with the very first Scriptures (The Ten Commandments), such became normative for morality. Moses did not direct them to The Catholic Church and the “infallible Bishop in Rome” but to those SCRIPTURES.

You have never once explained how there is any accountability when one embraces the Rule of Scripture.

One submits to a rule/canon OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND self. And likely to an arbitration that isn’t just by self. When self alone insists, “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right so there. I don’t need no accountability cuz I can’t be wrong, so I’m right. Just accept that with docility, as God speaking” is not accepting accountability for what one says.

you never seem to articulate how accepting the Rule of Scripture is actually a step towards greater accountability. Care to share that info with us now??

Read just above for one of the MANY times I’ve done that.

Let’s say a friendly man in blue pulls over your car. He notes that you were driving 60 MPH. He (embracing accountability and the Rule of Law) directs your attention to a large, white, square sign by the side of the road there next to the two of you, one with large, bold, black numerals and letters that read: MAX SPEED LIMIT: 45 MPH". In that case, you are being held accountable (and not just to self) and the Rule of Law is being embraced. This is varient than you saying to the policeman: “I’m infallible. I’m unaccountable. I’m INCAPABLE of doing wrong in driving. I am the sole authority here and I will determine if I was doing wrong but it’s moot since I cannot do wrong so I didn’t. Just accept that I’m right with docility.” Accountability suggests to something OTHER than self. The best rule/canon is one outside, beyond, above ALL parties (you and the policeman), one knowable to all and alterable by none (you or the policeman).

The diversity of doctrinal belief among Protestants who use Scripture as their norma normans proves this.

I’d be glad to compare the doctrinal differences between Luther and Calvin both regarded as accountable to the Rule of Scripture to the doctrinal differences between the RCC and LDS both rejecting any rule, both declaring self to be infallible/unaccountable, both insisting that whatever self says just be accepted with docility. My study of the cults leads me to believe the diversity of which you complain is FAR greater under your model than mine.

it is a fact that using Scripture as the rule results in disunity of doctrine and absolutely no accountability except to self interpreting Scripture. Do you disagree? Yes or No will suffice.

I strongly disagree. Study the cults. Your model results in FAR, FAR greater disunity. Having no rule or accountability does not lead to more comformity - in theology or in anything else in life. “I’m right so I’m right so there, I don’t need no accountability cuz I say I can’t be wrong so I’m right - just accept it with docility” is quite irrelevant to correctness.

The CC listens to all, considers all and ultimately trusts in the guidance of the HS as promised by our Lord.

No one questions that. I don’t when the Mormon does that, either. Or any other. And I don’t doubt that those who seek God’s leading receive it. What I doubt is that one is an infallible/unaccountable FOLLOWER if that self same one so self claims for self exclusively. Even in a PERFECT world, God’s following does not always results in ANY infallible or unaccountable FOLLOWING (Read Genesis Chapter 3?).

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[guanophore]

Then we are in agreement…

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.

No, Josiah, we are not. You are confusing the teachers with the doctrine. The doctrine is infallible because it comes from God.

The teachers are fallible because they are human.

We are to accept what comes from God with docility.

We are to evaluate what comes from humans according to the precepts of the faith, many of which can be found in Scripture.

The question then becomes WHAT is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for that norming?

The Teaching of Jesus, preserved within the Church, is that norm. He is the Truth.

 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.

You are welcome to use your humanistic methods to attempt to discern the divine. Catholics will use what has been revealed by God. Christianity is not a democracy, but a theocracy. He is the Head, and all the Truth flows from Him. We are not permitted to get together and create some “norm” other than what He has provided to mollify ourselves.

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.

No, Josiah, we reject SS because it is contrary to the Teachings of Jesus.

Authority requires a person. Sacred Writings, however Holy, cannot be held accountable, and therefore, cannot “rule”. They can provide norms, but “rulership” or the exercise of authority requires acts of the will, discernment, and the ability to take responsibility. These are all qualities of persons, not books.

Obviously, ANY rule/canon/norma normans is MOOT if self declares self to be incapable of error and thus correct.

Yes, this is true. It is only the declarations of Christ that prevent this from being the case in the Church. It is He who promises to lead us into all Truth, not ourselves.

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.”

Yes, the Catholic church rejects all attempts of humans to redefine what Christ has entrusted to the Church. We do receive the Teaching of the Apostles as the Word of God, and as such, it cannot be altered. We as individuals are not in a position to apply our fallible human “norms” to the Word of God.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

You have it backwards. The Orthodox disagree with Catholics, and to the extent that they do so, they depart from the Apostolic Traditions.

Either way, you just proved my point.

Since even The Catholic Church embraces that the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches have valid Apostolic Succession, and yet - you just said they are WRONG. Thus, you agree with me: Apostolic Succession (by your own admission) is moot to the issue of correctness.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

No, Josiah, we reject SS because it is contrary to the Teachings of Jesus.

So, when Jesus used Scripture normatively (“Sola Scriptura”) this was contrary to Jesus?
When Jesus praised the Ephesian Christians for regarding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, and declaring them false this was contrary to what Jesus did?

Jesus warned us repeatedly of false teachers. Where did He say to accept with docility whatever The Catholic Church - specifically, particularly, exclusively - says?

Sacred Writings, however Holy, cannot be held accountable, and therefore, cannot “rule”.

You have it backwards. What is the rule is not regarded as accountable. It need not be inerrant (we all embrace the Rule of Law but NONE of us regards it as holy and infallible, lol). You seem to be mixing up authority with normative, as well as the rule with the arbitration.

It is He who promises to lead us into all Truth, not ourselves.

I agree.

He promised The Catholic Church nothing, however.
And He never promised that any one would be an INFALLIBLE and UNACCOUNTABLE follower. You seem to be confusing the Teacher with the students, the Leader with the followers. Even in a PERFECT world, your premise fails. God inerrantly taught and lead Adam and Eve (holy persons in a holy world) and yet NEITHER of them were INFALLIBLE students or followers, and God held NEITHER of them to be unaccountable.

.

 

[guanophore]

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

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

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)?

I embrace God as the Authority, and look to His Word in the Church, and in Scripture as the rule/canon.

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 think you are leaving a lot of history out here.

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!"

The Church Jesus founded is right because Jesus is her Head, and the HS is her Soul. Her divine elements make her infallible. The fallible human creatures who are members of her do not create her doctrine. The Teachings were revealed to the Apostles by God, and they committed them to the Church.

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?

You have a deficient understanding of the nature of Church.

 

[guanophore]

1. It means that the Holy Spirit would teach. Now, where do you find the support that students are infallible/unaccountable?

The promise is made to the Church, not the individual students. Any and all individuals can err. The Church cannot err because the HS guides her into all Truth. That is why, when we accept and follow the teaching of the Church, we can have confidence that we won’t go astray.

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?

I am mystified why you believe that those who stray from the truth are not accountable for straying. Scripture is full of examples.

2.  Where does the verse say anything about The Catholic Church - particularly, exclusively, perpetually?  Where does the verse mention "successors?"

The promise was made to Church, which is Catholic. There is no other Church. The Church is the Body of Christ in the world, and will remain so until she is taken up. She will become His Bride.

The promise is exclusive because it was made only to the Church. Those who separate themselves from her are no longer protected by the gifts that are given to her.

The pattern set up by Christ is one of succession. This is how His will in the Church is perserved.

  Where does it mention infallible and unaccountable?

Where in “lead into all Truth” do you find any fallibility and need for accountability? who are you to hold God accountable? That seems to be the epitome of hubris.

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.

You are suffering from a deficient notion of “Church”.

 

[surritter]

Either way, you just proved my point.

Since even The Catholic Church embraces that the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches have valid Apostolic Succession, and yet - you just said they are WRONG. Thus, you agree with me: Apostolic Succession (by your own admission) is moot to the issue of correctness.

We did not say that Apostolic succession is a GUARANTEE of teaching infallibly! A Catholic bishop, just like an Eastern Orthodox bishop, may have succession but he could be teaching false doctrines. The Holy Spirit guides the Church, not necessarily individuals.

So in your quote above, you are almost right. Apostolic succession is not the only thing required, but neither is it totally irrelevant to the ability to teach truth, as you seem to imply. It is one required aspect; another is continuity with the body of the visible Church, which is where the Eastern Orthodox diverged.

 

[guanophore]

Your denomination disagrees.

No, Josiah, the Church does not disagree. The Church produced the Bible. It is an example of the infallible action of the Church, being guided into all Truth by the HS.

Jesus refered to Scripture - specifically by that term, 22 times: before even The Catholic Church itself claims (with zero substantiation) to have come into existence; so clearly Jesus doesn’t agree that The Catholic Church is the source of Scripture. The Israelities at Mount Sinai didn’t agree with you, either.

You are mixing up your subjects again, Josiah. The Church produced the Bible. The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. In 382 AD, the Catholic Church bound 27 books together with the Septuagint, creating the Bible.

What is it about Jesus saying “I will build my Church” that you find to lack substantiation? I thought you were a Christian?

So it alone claims. No one denies that anyone can claim anything. But do you think that truth matters? Do you think it matters if the claim is true - whether it comes from the LDS or RCC or any other?

You are implying that Jesus has built something that is deficient.

But acts of faith is not the issue here, accountability is.  The Catholic Church has shown little hesitatation to declare persons "wrong" even though they embraced the same act of faith in a teacher that just accepts whatever that one says as correct.

Now perhaps we are getting to the nitty gritty of what really hurt you.

You are right, the Church is very hesitant to judge persons wrong. Jesus commanded us not to do so. We can judge actions, we can judge teachings, but the state of the soul is up to God to judge. Even the person who is excommunicated has their soul commended to God.

Yes, OBVIOUSLY, it and it itself alone can claim that such “comes from Christ” - just as the LDS does and just as all the cults do - no one denies that one CAN do this; the question is: is it correct? You may simply CHOOSE to accept it with docility, just as our Mormon friends do - and I’m not disputing ANY such pure act of faith. I’m just discussing the epistemology of what you are defending as the most sound way to determine who among us is correct

I do not believe that God will reveal something different to me than what He has already revealed to 2000 years of faithful disciples.

YES! Actually, The Catholic Church passionately insists on accountability for ALL OTHERS. It just rejects it for itself.

You seem to misunderstand the difference between the Church, and the fallible persons who are members of her. It is most likely that you do this because you have a deficient understanding of “church”.

Of course, as we all know, Jesus never said anything about The Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church claims all this for itself.

Apparently you think He said “I will build my churches” instead of using the singular. Perhaps this is an example of your private interpretation of Scripture?

When did The Catholic Church loose this humility and ability to learn? The willingness to be corrected?

The Church is infallible, and therefore, has no need for such qualities. Only the fallible humans who are members of her need such things.

Do you have the “reasons” why the best way to determine correctness is for self alone to declare self alone to be incapable of error, infallible, exempt from accountability?

No, I reject the premise. I believe that Jesus does not build something that is deficient.

Jesus never mentioned The Catholic Church or said it and it itself exclusively is the sole interpreter or infallible or unaccountable. But He did warn us about false teachers, antichrists and those that would lead many astray. He did praise the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, and for finding them false.

There is only one Church, Josiah. Jesus, as her Head, is infallible (He is divine, you know. )

Where is this justification that The Catholic Church - specifically, particularly, perpetually and exclusively - is infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, and whatever it and it itself exclusively says is just to be accepted with docility?

“I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail”. Teaching error causes people to pass through the gates of hell

He was doing what Scripture forbids?  Where did the Israelities reject The Ten Commandments as normative and instead look to The Catholic Church as the infallible/unaccountable teacher - docilicly accepting what IT said rather than looking to those first Scriptuers?

Scripture is normative. However if you read it in isolation from the Apsotolic tradition that produced it, you will not be likely to arrive at the Truth. If it were possible to do this, a Teaching Authority would not be needed.