The use of scripture as normative does not equate to SS. Jesus is the Authority. Scripture cannot wield authority.
“The HS will lead you into all Truth”.
What? Using Scripture as the norm IS Sola Scriptura.
Funny, no one told Moses or Jesus that! Jesus referred to Scripture - specifically by that very term - 22 times before even The Catholic Church itself claims that it even came into existence! And, funny, The Catholic Church doesn’t agree with you, either. It teaches that GOD produced the Scriptures.
EXACTLY! It doesn’t say, “the Holy Spirit will lead The Catholic Church exclusively into all truth and it and it alone will perpetually and infallibly follow that lead and neither God nor man is to regard it and it alone as accountable.”
Since the bishops and teachers of The Oriental Orthodox Churches and The Eastern Orthodox Churches have valid Apostolic Succession according to The Catholic Church, and since those Churches are WRONG according to The Catholic Church, therefore Apostolic Succession does not insure correctness, as was the point.
Agreed. Now read Guanophore’s posts!
He didn’t. He said “I will build my church.”
'Round and 'round indeed!
And I agree, it just has nothing whatsoever to do with The Catholic Church or with The Catholic Church exclusively, specifically and perpetually being infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error and whatever it and it itself alone says is just to be accepted “with docility” “as God speaking.”
OK, then if Jesus was talking about “a church,” and it isn’t the Catholic Church, which one that we see today was he referring to?
I’ll just pick out #3 here – Jesus mentioned a Church, right? Now, let’s go through our history. Which church that is around today (it must still be here since it can’t be prevailed against) could he have been speaking of? I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but could you give a short, simple answer to the questions I’ve posed in this specific post?
Jesus did not use Sola Scriptura because He was God. He is the authority so his interpretation is perfectly and completely valid. When he ascended to the Father, he gave this power to interpret scripture to the Church he founded on Peter.
Of course, Peter was the head of the Catholic Church. This is a prime example of why you need an authority to tell you what scripture means. Sola Scriptura is utterly incapable of resolving these kinds of conflicts because documents don’t resolve conflicts, authority does.
You keep saying these issues are moot. They most emphatically are germane because Sola Scriptura tries, and fails, to discount these issues.
It is simple to read the Church Fathers like Polycarp, Ireneaus, Augustine, Justin Martyr, etc al and see how Apostolic succession has progressed over time.
You are trying to move the target again. The issue is not about “correctness”, it is about the validity of Sola Scriptura, which is untenable because it does not allow for proper interpretation by any authority.
This is preposterous. He commissioned the Church. It was Catholic for 1500 years. Again, this is nothing more than your own interpretation which flies in the face of 2000 years of Christian tradition and understanding.
I don’t follow what you are at here. Then again, I can’t understand how you take any of the position you propose!
Or you could just follow Jesus into all Truth by trusting in the Catholic Church, which he founded, and stop “protesting”. Sola Scriptura is a dismal failure as evidenced by the thousands of different interpretations of Scripture.
You are absolutely right, IronHammer! Ephesians 3:10 tells us “that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavens.” It doesn’t say that through Sacred Scripture the manifold wisdom of God will be made known - it’s through the church - and at the time Paul wrote this, there was only one church - the Catholic Church.
Actually it predates that. The term Catholic Church is found in scripture which is probably where the term originated. Ignatius is the one who gets credit for the first documented use of the term as a name for the church. But if one looks at Acts 9:31 and reads:
But this is impure science AJ. I could just as easily apply a different standard - comparing doctrinal disunity of the ancient Churches vs the doctrinal disunity of the modern ones - like yours and the LDS. How do you suppose the modern churches would fair then? Or we could compare all Churches TODAY with the writings of the Churches in the first centuries, prior to any split. What would also be a purer, more objective more scientific assessment would be to look at the doctrine of the SAME entity OVER TIME. Compare the Catholic Church of 1500 years ago to the CC of today; while looking at Protestant churches of the Reformation to ones today.
You have closed the world into your “self exempting self” box, a box of your own making. Your comparisons are only valid if the ONLY consideration were the “self exempting self” paradigm, but IT ISNT. The standard you should be using is apostolic succession: what happens to doctrine when you ignore it? You start naming Churches after people’s ideas…
There are many definitions of SS, so if you wish to embrace this one, who am I to argue?
You are not reading carefully, Josiah. You did not process what I wrote. I have written it at least twice now, and you are still not getting it. Now ,if that can happen when you read my posts in this thread, what makes you think it can’t happen when you read Scripture? You have your own prejudices stuck so deeply in your head that you are not able to process a different point of view, even it is repeatedly offered to you!
Josiah, the Aposltes understood that Jesus only founded ONE CHURCH. It is Catholic. They understood that the promise to be led into all Truth was made to that Church. They believed that those who departed from them were no longer covered by the promises of Christ.
The Apostles, early fathers, and all the believers for 1600 years certainly thought he did. How is it, do you suppose, that God was so weak and ineffectual during all that time that He was unable to convince the Catholic Church that this was not the case?
Well, Josiah, I think if you were to use a little common sense here, you would realize that human beings lack the capacity to be infallible without divine intervention. There fore, God being an inerrant leader has EVERYTHING to do with it.
No, but then again, I do not subscribe to your magical unaccountable theory. It seems very clear to me from scripture and sacred traditions that teachers are even held accountable with greater strictness. Apparently there is one or more that hurt you who was not, so you have devised this theory out of your resentment.
What is wrong with them?
Perhaps you might benefit from a little research into how the book you now call “Bible” came into existence.
The Catholic Church is not a “denomination”. The Catholic Church is the One Church founded by Christ. All other ecclesial communities have defined themselves by how they have departed from (denominated) from Catholicism.
Well, the Apostles and the early fathers saw it differently, Josiah. They used the Alexandrian Septuagint, and that collection was their normative scripture. Catholics wrote, collected, disseminated, preserved, canonized and promulgated the Bible, which contained 27 books DECLARED AS SCRIPTURE AND ADDED to the Hebrew Scriptures. To say that the Church has had nothing to do with what is scripture and what is not demonstrates a gross lack of knowledge about your own family history. Have you considered, before making such embarassing remarks, finding out the facts?
No, I do not notice this Josiah, but I am beginning to understand that this is the only way you are able to notice history. You are not the only prejudiced anti-C atholic I have encountered here. Some people cannot accept anything from the Catholic Church, including Christ.
Actually, as your position becomes increasing clear, I think the road is going to straighten out for you real quick.
Since it is not my idea, but one you imagined in your own mind, you will have to cook up an answer to this as well. I trust you will be able to entertain yourself in the process. You seem to have quite an active imagination.
Since I don’t have a premise that all of us are infallible, I don’t; have to worry about the fact that the idea is not only unbiblical,but a product of your imagination. Whew!
True, He only built One, and it was described as “Catholic”, but called The Way.
There was only One Church. It was the Catholic Church. I understand that you don’t believe that, but I am writing it so that others who are reading it will not fall into the historical error into which you have fallen. You seem to believe that the Catholic Church emerged at some other time in history, and that it is not identical with the one described in the NT. You have to believe that lie, because otherwise, you would have to become Catholic!
I made an extensive answer to this above. I think you are not reading my posts.
Indeed, the Catholic Church is much MORE than every other teacher of Doctrine. Since her doctrines come from Christ, and are protected from error by the HS, she is infallible in her teaching. According to that doctrine, teachers will be judged with greater strictness,and it is the duty of the Church to hold people accountable for their teaching.
I think you must be cutting and pasting this part. I think I have read it many times already. What is your goal here Josiah? What do you hope to accomplish with this cut and paste passage?
I understand why you have to invent that the Catholic Church came from some other time and place in history. If you were to accept that it is the NT Church, and identical with the one described there, you would have to join it, and that would be awfully difficult. You seem to have a considerable degree of anti-Catholic hostility.
Sure we can! How come we don’t have the right to interpret scripture but you do? We understand what Scripture says in the light of the Apostles’ teaching. We understand that when “scripture says” Church, it means Catholic Church. We know that because there was only one Church, and it was Catholic.
This point is well made. However, Catholics don’t “assume”. We “receive”. You will find this principle in the Scriptures also. The Faith is not distilled from the reading of a truncated Bible 2000 years after the fact. The Faith is handed down through the paradosis. The faith is protected by the power of the HS, through the Apostolic Succession. No assumptions are needed.
There was only One Church when made His promise to lead it. That one Church was, and still is, Catholic. The HS leads a great many non-Catholics, but is always leading them in the direction of Catholicity.
Josiah, the Church does not need to “follow” Him, as she is already in, with, and through Him. It is the human members that sojourn in this world that need to follow HIm. When you pose questions like this, it reflects a deficient view of the Church. All who are in unity with the Church, to whom the promise was made, can benefit from the gift of infallibility.
I guess I wonder why you have so much trouble with this. Do you think it is not possible for Jesus to lead His Church into All Truth?
No, Josiah. Using Scripture normatively is quite Catholic, and does not equate to the doctrine of SS.
You seem to believe this strongly. Why are you here, Josiah? You seem to have an anti-Catholic axe to grind, not sure why. Are you invested in convincing Catholics of these ideas that you hold, so that they will abandon their false faith?
