Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura

[Vile_Servant]

Yes.

The rest of your statement has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread or what you quoted from me and I believe would be a rule violation for me to address.

.

In your post #127, you stated “1. There is no doctrine” , which answered my question to you regarding the doctrine of the Real Presence.

Then in your subsequent post #133, you changed your earlier statement, to "1. There is no doctrine as “Sola Scriptura”.

Why the need for retracting your original answer?

 

[seascale]

I have always loved the prophetic words of St. Vincent of Lerins writing in his Commonitory ca 434 A.D.But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason, - because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

When anyone hears or reads something, some interpretation is involved in appropriating the information. Even if the source (be it Bible or Church) is infallible, the hearer’s interpretation is still fallible. The chain is not stronger than its weakest link. So I would ask, what is easier to understand, the Bible or the CCC together with all of the volumes of documents issued over the years? I have read portions of the CCC, and I have to tell you, the Bible is hands-down more intelligible (with the exception of some apocalyptic writings, which would fall under the category of things nonessential to Christian understanding). Also, when Catholics claim they need an infallible Magisterium to correctly interpret the Bible for them, I ask: How do you infallibly interpret the Catholic Church’s interpretation? Once again, the chain is not stronger than its weakest link. Interposing an infallible interpreter in the form of the Magisterium does not really solve the problem.

 

[MarcoPolo]

“We believe the prophets and apostles because the Lord has been their witness by performing miracles…And **we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.” **(On Truth, 14.10.11)

Nevermind, I have found a link here to Aquinas’ On Truth (better known by a search as Quaestiones disputatae de veritate. The context of the quote you provide is St. Thomas positing from whence truth of the faith comes. We do not believe the teachings of the successors in everything they say, but rather from what was left by the Apostles, i.e. what we call the deposit of faith. He does not posit sola scriptura by mentioning only their writings in this quote. To support that, I cite St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica:*Accordingly we must say that faith is commended in the first sense in the faithful of Christ: and in this way faith is not in the demons, but only in the second way, for they see many evident signs, whereby they recognize that the teaching of the Church is from God, although they do not see the things themselves that the Church teaches, for instance that there are three Persons in God, and so forth. (II.II.5.2)

Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. Even so, it is evident that a man whose mind holds a conclusion without knowing how it is proved, has not scientific knowledge, but merely an opinion about it. Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things (II.II.5.3)*In these citations, St. Thomas calls the teaching of the Church “an infallible and Divine rule.” The Church and Scripture proceed from and are manifestations of what he calls the “First Truth.”

Sola Scripturists do not believe the Church’s teaching comes from God. Nor do Sola Scripturists believe the Church must have the correct understanding of matters of faith. St. Thomas Aquinas does not fit the bill of a Sola Scripturist at all.

 

[seascale]

Would you provide a link to this work of Thomas Aquinas?

MarcoPolo, the address is dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer.htm

The full title of the work (in its original Latin) is Questiones Disputatae de Veritate. To arrive at this quote, follow the link to question 14 (subject: Faith) and scroll down to Article X. The Article is long, so to save yourself some time you can perform a search on “Mark (16:20)”, which he quotes in this article (in fact, his quotation of Mark is the “…” in my quotation).

 

[seascale]

In these citations, St. Thomas calls the teaching of the Church “an infallible and Divine rule.” The Church and Scripture proceed from and are manifestations of what he calls the “First Truth.”

Sola Scripturists do not believe the Church’s teaching comes from God. Nor do Sola Scripturists believe the Church must have the correct understanding of matters of faith. St. Thomas Aquinas does not fit the bill of a Sola Scripturist at all.

Ah, here we have the very crux of the debate!

Whereas you, a Catholic, placed the emphasis so: “Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith.”

I place the emphasis so: “Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith.”

Which of us are right? Well, we must take the sentence in its entirety. In this quote it is clear Aquinas assumes the teaching of the Church will always proceed from the “First Truth”. In this respect, you are correct. However, from the quote I provided earlier, it is also clear Aquinas would not have written what he did in Summa Theologica if he had thought the Church would ever at any point stray from those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings. Obviously you, like Aquinas, believe the RCC is indefectible and therein lies our difference in opinion. On the other hand I, like Aquinas, believe teachers should only be believed in so far as their teaching is congruent with Scripture (as opposed to Scripture plus Tradition).

For the sake of mutual understanding, I would make the following corrections:

Sola Scripturists do not believe the Church’s teaching comes from God.

I would ammend this statement to say: “Sola Scripturists do not believe many of the RCC’s teachings comes from God.”

The Church and Scripture proceed from and are manifestations of what he calls the “First Truth.”

The “First Truth” is God, and so I would disagree with this statement (they are not manifestations of God).

 

[seascale]

When anyone hears or reads something, some interpretation is involved in appropriating the information. Even if the source (be it Bible or Church) is infallible, the hearer’s interpretation is still fallible. The chain is not stronger than its weakest link. So I would ask, what is easier to understand, the Bible or the CCC together with all of the volumes of documents issued over the years? I have read portions of the CCC, and I have to tell you, the Bible is hands-down more intelligible (with the exception of some apocalyptic writings, which would fall under the category of things nonessential to Christian understanding). Also, when Catholics claim they need an infallible Magisterium to correctly interpret the Bible for them, I ask: How do you infallibly interpret the Catholic Church’s interpretation? Once again, the chain is not stronger than its weakest link. Interposing an infallible interpreter in the form of the Magisterium does not really solve the problem.

I am also following a forum at this site labeled “‘Invincible ignorance’ inquiries” which illustrates my point nicely. Many Catholics have responded to TruthSeeker17’s original inquiry, but he is getting a lot of different answers. This topic involves salvation, and would therefore be categorized as essential to Christian understanding.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I place the emphasis so: “Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith.”

I place the emphasis on both. As I said, St. Thomas considered Scripture to manifest the First Truth, and the Church’s teaching, the infallible and Divine rule, proceeds from the same source.

 

[inkaneer]

Originally Posted by MarcoPolo
I have always loved the prophetic words of St. Vincent of Lerins writing in his Commonitory ca 434 A.D.
But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason, - because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

To which seascale wrote: “When anyone hears or reads something, some interpretation is involved in appropriating the information. Even if the source (be it Bible or Church) is infallible, the hearer’s interpretation is still fallible. The chain is not stronger than its weakest link. So I would ask, what is easier to understand, the Bible or the CCC together with all of the volumes of documents issued over the years? I have read portions of the CCC, and I have to tell you, the Bible is hands-down more intelligible (with the exception of some apocalyptic writings, which would fall under the category of things nonessential to Christian understanding). Also, when Catholics claim they need an infallible Magisterium to correctly interpret the Bible for them, I ask: How do you infallibly interpret the Catholic Church’s interpretation? Once again, the chain is not stronger than its weakest link. Interposing an infallible interpreter in the form of the Magisterium does not really solve the problem.”

Come to think of it, every heretic has been a sola scripturist. To the list by St. Vincent of Lerins of heretics such as Novatian, Sabellius, Donatus, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius and Nestorius we can add Luther, Calvin Zwinglii, John Smythe, the Wesley’s, Henry VIII, and others. Paul was inspired to write:

“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]

and that verse is as valid today as it was when Paul penned it. And we see the evidence of what happens when people think they can do a better job of interpreting scripture than the pillar and foundation of truth that Paul calls the church. As for the listener being fallible, it really does not enter into the picture. The mission of the church is to teach truth. Whether the listener accepts the truth or gives heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons such as sola scriptura, that is for the listener to be judged. See John chap. 6 for example of Jesus teaching truth which the listeners did not accept. They walked away from Him. How do you think they fared at the time of their judgement? As for the question which is easier to understand the Bible or the Catholic Church I say it sure isn’t the Bible. I point to over 40,000 protestant denominations as proof positive that the Bible is not easier to understand.

 

[inkaneer]

Thank you inkaneer, but I’m afraid this unfortunately just spawns another question: Does the Western Schism within the Catholic Church, then, represent a break in the apostolic succession? If not why?

No it does not. Within the Catholic Church there are 22 churches which are called Rites. Each of these "Rites’ can trace their Apostolic Succession to one of the Apostles whether it be Andrew as in the case of the Greek Catholics [also called Byzantine Catholic to avoid confusion with the Greek Orthodox who also claim Apostolic Succession from Andrew] or the Malankar Catholics who claim Succession from Thomas or any of the other Apostles. Of these 22 Rites the largest one is the Western Rite also called the Latin Rite which traces its Apostolic Succession from Peter. This line of Succession is traced through the succession of bishops and is also present in the Orthodox and the so called Oriental or Coptic Churches. So the succession is the line of bishops duly and validly ordained. The early church was extremely protective of it for it is the pedigree, if you will, of the church. Protestant denominations do not possess Apostolic Succession. While many priests, monks and nuns joined Luther and company no bishops did. The line of succession is thru the bishop not the priest, nun or monk. Now for a short time the Anglicans did have apostolic succession as there were validly consecrated bishops who left the church and followed Henry VIII. However, the Anglican church changed its ordination ritual to an extent that made it null and void so it was no longer a valid ordination. Much later they changed it back but by then all the validly consecrated bishops were dead and only ivalidly ordained bishops were alive and an invalidly ordained bishop cannot validly ordain anyone. So today even the Anglican church does not have valid apostoilic succession.

 

[surritter]

Depends on what do you understand by Sola Scriptura.

Perhaps this may be the most used arguments agains it: ‘The doctrine of Sola Scriptura contradicts itself. For if the doctrine is true, then it ought itself to be stated in Holy Scripture. But in fact it is not.’

So they offer us the following argument:

1. 
   *]Sola Scriptura = “All true propositions are stated in Holy Scripture.”
   *]Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
   *]Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a true proposition.
   
   But in fact, the argument should be of the form:
   1. 
      *]Sola Scriptura = “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture.”
      *]Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
      *]Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a truth necessary to salvation.
      
      And to this conclusion I, for one, have no objection.
      
      So, by the definition I offered I believe in Sola Scriptura, meaning that all truth necessary for salvation or of very big benefit for me are stated in the Holy Scriptures.

1. 1. 
      As a Catholic, I almost agree with your rephrasing of the sola scriptura syllogism, but I would say that you can’t merely plug in the words Sola Scriptura from statement 2 to 3. The point is not that SS itself is being weighed as a necessity for salvation, but whether the documents SS points to are the ONLY thing we should listen to. That’s quite a difference, and if you think carefully about it, you should abandon your adherence to SS.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

In your post #127, you stated “1. There is no doctrine” , which answered my question to you regarding the doctrine of the Real Presence.

Then in your subsequent post #133, you changed your earlier statement, to "1. There is no doctrine as “Sola Scriptura”.

Why the need for retracting your original answer?

In 127, I said “there is no SUCH doctrine.” There was and is no retraction.

Sola Scriptura is the PRAXIS of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the norming of doctrines.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

.
No, we don’t read it differently.

The words are what they are. It’s IMPOSSIBLE to read words that don’t exist.

.
.
Wow. Are you really saying you believe that it is not possible for two people to understand a passage differently?

Of course, but you said nothing about interpretation, you said you READ it differently. Yes, people can INTERPRET things differently, but word can only be READ as they appear on the page. You seem to be confusing Catholic eisegesis with reading. You keep insisting, “Jesus SAID…” but you have yet to show where He said anything of the things The Catholic Church alone claims that He said, and that you keep affirming that He did. And, no, you cannot “read” where He did if there are no words of such to read. You are confusing the interpretation of one based on invisible words only that one can “see” with reading what is real.

. You insist on imposing your interpretation. It’s classic Catholic eisegesis. You insist on “reading” invisible words - and then making THAT the basis of your argument. Friend, it’s only possble to read words that exist, otherwise, it’s not “reading.”

.

Don’t you think that the best way to understand what an author has written is to hear it from the author?

I suppose. Now, where is it substantiated that the Holy Spirit explains all these things exclusively, solely, particularly and perpetually to The Catholic Church and that it and it itself alone infallibly understands all these explanations? ANYONE can claim such (read any of the cult leaders, if not, you REALLY should!), but then what is written by God is moot, what alone matters is what self alone says God whispered in the ear of self alone, which none (including self) can substantiate.

. Then quote Jesus or any Apostle where they said “Catholic” - at all, and especially as the proper noun for a specific denomination. Friend, the word was for centuries only an adjective (and still is such) meaning “whole” “general” “universal” “all embracing.”

.

Yes, the Scriptures use the word Catholic in reference to the Church as a descriptor.

Then quote where Jesus said “Catholic.”

. You keep insisting, “Jesus promises this to The Catholic Church, exclusively, particularly”… Jesus authorized this to The Catholic Church, exclusively, particularly." But you have yet to show that He so much as even MENTIONED it. About anything. For anything. Concerning anything. In any regard or for any matter. Friend, it’s all just self making huge claims for se

lf.

.
He only founded one church, Josaih, and it is Catholic.

Friend, READ what you quoted from me.

I just read a list of scriptures you posted from the Scriptures, clearly stating that it is required of us to hold teachers accountable.

Yes. Do you think The Catholic Church teaches doctrine? Ergo…

The Catholic Church insists, rather passionately, that all OTHER teachers are fully, wholly accountable for what is taught as doctrine, right here and right now! BUT

The Catholic Church makes one stunning, remarkable, absolute and exclusive exception:** itself**. IT, it alone insists, is accountable only to God.

.
The doctrines of the Church come from Christ. He does not create any errors.

.

READ what you quoted from me.

Did you know that The LDS Church as well as virtually every single one of the cults claims EXACTLY the same thing? Do you regard such to be sound epistemology, the best way to determine if the LDS and all those cults are correct? You are going to GREAT lengths to defend that epistemology, you must think it the most sound.

.You keep insisting, as the foundation of your argument, "Jesus said

!" But when the relevant and mandated question is asked, namely, “where?” you have nothing. Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

.
What are you working so hard to accomplish?

READ what you quoted from me. I don’t understand how that is a response to what you quoted from me.

. Yes, GOD is an inerrant Teacher and Leader.
Yes, you’ve made the point that He promised to teach and lead.
Which makes GOD the Teacher and Leader.
You claim (and as yet with NOTHING WHATSOEVER to support it, nothing) that God ONLY teaches and leads The Catholic Church (particularly, specifically, exclusively, solely, perpetually), making it the student and follower.
But you seem to continue to confuse Teacher with students, Leader with followers.

.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

No, we don’t.

You are simply removing words and replacing them with others, confusing teaching with learning, leading with following. You are imposing “The Catholic Church” into texts where such doesn’t exist. You are inserting “infallible” and “unaccountable” where those words don’t exist. You seem to not know what is real and what is not, what is there and what isn’t. And inserting invisable INTO the text so that you can claim to “read” them is not reading; deleting words that are there and inserting words that are not there so you can claim to “read” the unreal is not reading.

. YOU are making the irrational and entirely unbiblical premise that since God teaches, ergo it is the only possibility that The Catholic Chruch exclusively and infallibly LEARNS, because God leads, ergo it The Catholic Church is INCAPABLE of not infallibly following.

Where did you get this idea? Certainly not from the Bible! If you’ve read just the first 3 chapters, you’d realize how wholly unbiblical this is! Not even in a PERFECT world has your premise of any validity whatsoever. You are confusing Teacher with students, Leader with followers.

.
No, Josiah. the Catholic Church does not have to “learn” anything.

Ah, the ego of it all…

Then your whole point about Jesus promising to teach all things and to lead us is entirely moot, isn’t it? It all comes down to one thing: The claim of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone. What Jesus said/promised/authorized is all moot, isn’t it? Seems so.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[simspt]

Josiah
How does one determine whether a “scripture” is an “erroneous scripture” if not by tradition?
many of the New Testament documents do not contain the writers’ names: they are strictly ANONYMOUS

J.N.D. Kelly, a major Protestant church historian from this century writes in his Early Christian Doctrines

"It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness." (page 47-48)

"Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] 'guard the deposit', i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church's UNERRING tradition." (page 51)

 

[surritter]

OK – you know everyone is thinking it:

AJ, why do you like to double the font size, and add all sorts of spaces and periods? Are you purposely trying to have your posts take up a whole page?

I ask this in good humor, but I can’t help myself anymore!

 

[Vile_Servant]

In 127, I said “there is no SUCH doctrine.” There was and is no retraction.

Sola Scriptura is the PRAXIS of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the norming of doctrines.

.

Unfortunately, it appears that the rest of the Protestant world disagrees with your claim that Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine.

I will quote just one Protestant apologist for now, James White, one of the foremost defenders of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura today:

“Sola Scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. **The doctrine **does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture.” - James White. (vintage.aomin.org/SS.html)

 

[kepha1]

Praxis, doctrine, it makes little difference.

MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY
By JAMES AKIN

MANY Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine (or praxis) of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.

It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter .aspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.

French theologian Yves Congar states, “[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians.” . . . [At Trent] it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . [W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.' .. Written’ and `unwritten’ indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge" (*Tradition and Traditions *[New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).

This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine (or praxis) by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it. In the debate James White apparently failed to grasp this point and was unable to come up with answers to the charge that his arguments were geared only toward proving material sufficiency.

AmericanJosiah will grasp it but only if he wants to.

 

[Cristian_B]

As a Catholic, I almost agree with your rephrasing of the sola scriptura syllogism, but I would say that you can’t merely plug in the words Sola Scriptura from statement 2 to 3. The point is not that SS itself is being weighed as a necessity for salvation, but whether the documents SS points to are the ONLY thing we should listen to. That’s quite a difference, and if you think carefully about it, you should abandon your adherence to SS.

I believe that there are other ways than the Bible trough which God speaks, but the Bible shows us whether the tradition or teaching is from God or not.

 

[guanophore]

Also, it seems like hubris to say the Church created the Bible. God created the Bible, and His Holy Spirit guided fallible men toward inclusion of the proper books within the canon.

That is what the Church is! It is the spirit of God, working through fallible men, to create infallible results.

The Bible is a good example, Another is in the book of Acts, where the Church created guidelines for the faithful, and summarized the decision as “it seemed right to the HS and to us”. It is an incarnational principle, the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ working together with the HS.

In the words of Bruce Milne: “The church no more created the NT canon by recognizing and defining it than Isaac Newton created the law of gravity.”

Soli Deo Gloria,
Seascale

I would stipulate this point. So, why is it ok to credit Newton with discovering and defining gravity, but it is not ok to credit the Catholic Church with the Bible?

The “men, inspired by God” who wrote of the Spirit were Catholics. Their writings were preserved, protected, promulgated and canonized by catholics.

 

[guanophore]

Which brings up a very good point I’ve always wondered about. The Church was founded and began in Jerusalem. Why isn’t the RCC, if it is the one true church, called the Jerusalem Catholic Church?

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

Jesus prophesied that Jerusalem would fall. He sent the Apsotles to Rome because it was the center of civilzation at that time, and that was the most practical point from which to spread the gospel “to all nations”. I think some study of culture, language, politics and economics prior to the birth of Christianity will make this clear.

For that matter, since the Church did begin in Jerusalem, wouldn’t it be appropriate to say the Eastern Orthodox Church is the one true church?

Truth is not defined by those that depart from it.

They also claim to have an unbroken succession, and you can’t both be right.

Well, we are both right. We both have valid Apostolic Succession. The sacraments of both East and West are, therefore, valid. We share 99% of the Apostolic Teachings, so we have more Truth in common that either of us do with our separated brethren.

It is common, when arguing from a position of weakness, to mischaracterize (i.e. do not mischaracterize because it makes your position look weak) The implication made here is that Luther read a passage from the Bible and inserted the word “alone” into the text. That is very disingenuous. Everyone knows that is not what happened. As someone said earlier in this thread (I’m paraphrasing) let’s be charitable towards each other and focus on the real disagreements without mischaracterizing each other’s positions.

I don’t think everyone knows what happened. The point I am trying to make is a response to “you can’t read words that are not there”. In fact, this is exactly what Luther did. The fact that he did so in all sincerity only strengthens my point.

Also, while it is possible to read words into scripture, the Bible is sufficiently clear on all matters of importance.

Where is the list of what is important?

If it is sufficiently clear, why are all those who adhere to it so fragmented?

At least, Irenaeus seemed to think so: “Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe in them…those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such clear demonstrations.” (Against Heresies - Book II Chapter XXVII)

Indeed, they CAN be understood harmoniously, but only when interpreted in the light of the Apostolic Teaching.

So, was Thomas Aquinas contradicting himself? Of course not (I suspect he was more brilliant than the two of us put together .

I will jump on that bandwagon!

Actually, I see a very clear consistency in both quotes. He declared the Church infallible, but only in so far as it was consistent with the Bible (to wit: “Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith.”).

In these two quotes by Aquinas I see a philosophy of the Church under the Bible. What I hear from a lot of Catholics in this thread is a philosophy of the Bible under the Church.

Indeed, this is the Catholic teaching (consistency with scripture). But the apostles did not teach one “over” the other, but two strands of divine revelation equal and complimentary.

 

[guanophore]

Of course, but you said nothing about interpretation, you said you READ it differently. Yes, people can INTERPRET things differently, but word can only be READ as they appear on the page.

As I am sure you are aware, the words appear differently on many pages. I have 20 versions of scripture in my computer, and I can asure you that the words appear on most of them just a little bit different. Some more than others. You seem to be interested in epistomology, so I will take a moment to note something about the function of the human organism. When information enters our brain through the senses, the brain immediately interprets the data that comes from the nerve receptors, and constructs perceptions about it. Therefore, whenever we read, we interpret. If I do not know the language (I struggle a lot with the Hebrew alphabet) I can LOOK at the word as it appears on the page, but not be able to READ it. As soon as I READ it, interpretation occurs.

 You seem to be confusing Catholic eisegesis with reading.

Catholics have no need of eisegesis. Catholics produced the NT, and there is nothing in it that is not consistent with Catholic teaching. The entire NT reflects what the Catholic Church believes and teaches.

You keep insisting, “Jesus SAID…” but you have yet to show where He said anything of the things The Catholic Church alone claims that He said, and that you keep affirming that He did.

You have made my point for me. Thanks!

When I read Jesus’ promises to the Church, I understand them from the point of view of what the Apostles believed and taught. When you read them, you understand them otherwise, so you do not see what I see. That is a matter of perception, which results from interpretation.

And, no, you cannot “read” where He did if there are no words of such to read. You are confusing the interpretation of one based on invisible words only that one can “see” with reading what is real.

I will concede that when you read your bible you do not perceive the Apostolic Teaching in it. You come from a faith tradition that separated itself from those Teachings about 500 years ago. In each generation, the divide separates a little further, until the Apostolic faith has become unrecognizable.

I suppose. Now, where is it substantiated that the Holy Spirit explains all these things exclusively, solely, particularly and perpetually to The Catholic Church and that it and it itself alone infallibly understands all these explanations?

It seems clear to me that my separated brethren have managed to cling to a great many of the Sacred Tradittions. That is why the Catholic Church teaches that the HS can use these ecclesial communities to draw people to Himself.

but then what is written by God is moot, what alone matters is what self alone says God whispered in the ear of self alone, which none (including self) can substantiate.

I think this is a great summary of the major flaw of Sola Scriptura.

Friend, READ what you quoted from me.

Originally Posted by Josiah
BUT The Catholic Church makes one stunning, remarkable, absolute and exclusive exception: itself. IT, it alone insists, is accountable only to God.

Did I miss something? I responded that the doctrines of the Church come from God. The Church is not in a position to hold God accountable for His own Teachings. Don’t you think that is awfully arrogant?

 Yes.  Do you think The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?  **Ergo......**

Yes. this is part of her God given directive.

READ what you quoted from me.

Did you know that The LDS Church as well as virtually every single one of the cults claims EXACTLY the same thing?

Yes.

  Do you regard such to be sound epistemology, the best way to determine if the LDS and all those cults are correct?  You are going to GREAT lengths to defend that epistemology, you must think it the most sound.

I think the best way to discern what is True is to receive Truth from God, who is Truth.

You seem to think that Truth is better served when it comes through your fallible human filters.

 I don't understand how that is a response to what you quoted from me.

You seem very invested in stating that the Catholic Church has no…

what are you trying to accomplish in making all these denials of the Catholic Church? If the Church has no merit, why are you investing so much effort to insist this is the case? Do you honestly think that you are going to pursuade those of us who have received the faith from the Apsostles that your repudiations should cause us to abandon it?

No, we don’t.

You are simply removing words and replacing them with others, confusing teaching with learning, leading with following.

If you believe this, then this is proof that we understand the contents of the NT differently. when I read it, I see that Jesus gave authority to His Apsotles, and they to their successors. When you read it, you see something different. I think you just proved my point again, thanks!

 You are imposing "The Catholic Church" into texts where such doesn't exist.  You are inserting "infallible" and "unaccountable" where those words don't exist.

As I said, there is no need to impose, or insert. The NT was written by, for, and about the Catholic faith. There is nothing in it that is inconsistent with Catholic Teaching, because they both come from the same Source, which is Christ.

You seem to not know what is real and what is not, what is there and what isn't.

Do you think if I saw things the way you do, I would know what is real, and what is not?

And inserting invisable INTO the text so that you can claim to "read" them is not reading; deleting words that are there and inserting words that are not there so you can claim to "read" the unreal is not reading.

It seems that you don’t beleive it is possible to understand the text from the point of view of the Apostles. Or, maybe you assume that, when you read it, YOU have the point of view of the Apostles. Is that the case?

the ego of it all....

Then your whole point about Jesus promising to teach all things and to lead us is entirely moot, isn’t it?

It is not moot to those who are in unity with the Apsotolic succession. this promise being made to them, and being inherited by those in communion with them, we can be confident that we are being led into all Truth when we embrace His teachings that He has preserved infallibly in the Church.

   It all comes down to one thing:  The claim of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone.

I think you say things like this because you have a deficient view of the nature of Church.

What Jesus said/promised/authorized is all moot, isn't it?  Seems so.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?