Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura

[seascale]

My friends, I am afraid that I must sign out indefinitely as I will be away from this forum for the forseeable future. I thank you all for the cordial discussion! I love Catholics and have many family members and friends who I love dearly that are Catholic. May God shower you with His grace.

Soli Deo Gloria,
seascale

 

[Philthy]

So, you mean to tell me Catholics are only required to believe those things which have been pronounced by the Catholic Church infallibly? I know this is not true. Nowhere does the Catholic Church encourage its laity to be “cafeteria Catholics.” No, as a Catholic you are supposed to accept all Catholic doctrine.

There is stuff that Catholics are obligated to believe and other stuff that that is optional.
All the Marian apparitions are optional beliefs, for example.

Sorry, but I doubt there are many Catholics who would challenge the Magisterium, let alone the Pope.

You doubt it? On what basis? There were non-catholics present at the Vatican 2 discussion to “challenge” all the bishops, including the Pope.

The RCC teaches that if you believe a Catholic doctrine to be in error, then the fact is you are in error! If you evaluate a Catholic doctrine against Scripture and find that doctrine to be contrary to Scripture, then your choices are to shut up about it, or present yourself for execommunication But the point is that you don’t have a leg to stand on. Your not even supposed to be judging the truthfulness of their teachings because it is not your prerogative, according to the Catholic Church.

You most definitely have a leg to stand on - your own leg. And if you think that it is a reliable leg, more reliable than the Catholic Church, then you are free to stand on it, but the Catholic Church wont pretend that you remain within its visible unity. It lets you know that you are standing on your own. It would be a lie to pretend otherwise.

Blessings!

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

The official, traditional description of Sola Scriptura:

“The Scriptures are to be used as the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (Ditto, 3).

“The Latin expression “sola scriptura” refers to the Holy Scriptures serving as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church.” (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)

This is not MY definition, it is the official, historic, traditional definition.

Sola Scriptura IS…

An embrace of God’s inerrent, holy, written word as the final “Rule” (staight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) or “norma normans” to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.

Sola Scriptura is NOT…

1. Doctrine. It’s praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Here is the Catholic position: “The Bible was 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 God wished.” Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it’s praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God’s inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.
2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It’s not hermeneutics, it’s norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by establishing the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.
3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura was just as useful at Mt. Sinai as it is today, only the “size” of the rule/canon was smaller. Christians (excluding Mormons) believe that the “canon” (authoritative books of Scripture) is closed so this is now a moot issue (except, perhaps, for the largely moot DEUTEROcanonical books about which there is no consensus but since no dogma comes from such anyway, it’s moot to the praxis).
4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) join the RCC in embracing private, individual arbitration (although rarely as radically or as extreme as the RCC does). This is called “private arbitration.” SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called “public arbitration.” It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.
5. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It’s just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use star gazing as the Canon for the evaluation of doctrines.

Those that reject the Rule of Scripture (RCC, LDS, as well as all the cults) do so not because they have an alternative norma normans for this purpose (they don’t) but becuase each of them rejects accountability (but exclusively in the sole case of self alone, they all passionately embracing it for all OTHERS); it’s accountability each rejects (for self, anyway), and thus norming and WHATEVER might serve as the norma normans in such. “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right, so there. Just accept whatever I alone say with docility.” Each attempts to justify this “all are accountable but me alone” in remarkably similar ways, but it’s the same position and same reason for the rejection of accountability.

.

 

[inkaneer]

You and I will disagree on this, but I do not believe transubstantiation is an essential doctrine. Also, I think it is worthwhile to point out that Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics all affirm the early Church councils. The contention of Protestants is that the Catholic Church began to imbibe some false ideas shortly after the time of Constantine.

But do you realize that this allegation by protestants contradicts scripture? And not just one verse either. Now Jesus said he would establish a church. Which one? Well none of the protestant denominations claims a 2,000 year history and only the Catholic Church claims and presents proof that it does so logic would say that church established by Jesus was the Catholic church. Now did that church go astray around the time of Constantine as seascale and other protestants allege. I say it did not and I would like seascale or any protestant to explain to us Catholics how the church established by Jesus could possibly teach false doctrine in light of scriptiure verses to the contrary. First, Scripture records that Jesus said His church would prevail over the forces of hell. But if that church taught false doctrine as protestants allege then hell prevails, not the church. Second, Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would lead the church into all truth. For the church to teach false doctrine as protestants allege means that either Jesus lied or the Holy Spirit was not doing His job. Third, the Scriptures record that Jesus said He would remain with His church until the end of the Age. Protestants would like to believe that Jesus just sat around twittling His thumbs and nonchalantly watched His church lapse into error AND DID NOTHING!!! Now just how preposturous can anyone claiming to be sola scripturists get to say that Jesus lied and Holy Scripture was in error. Now ,in light of these contradictions to the Holy Scriptures alleged by protestants I think they need to defend their allegations. Let’s see the evidentiary proof . . .if they have it.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

guanophore:

Yes, but since you are suffering from such a deficient idea of the nature of “church” your theory cannot be applied properly. It begins from a false premise, so results in a false conclusion.

So, what is YOUR answer to the questions:

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

Do you think that the teachers of such doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such?

Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?

IF you answer yes to the above questions, then The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches as doctrine - no less than any and all others. And you’ve just embraced that The Catholic Church is subject to the same norming as all others. The question then becomes WHAT is the most sound norma normans among us for the norming of those doctrines among us (the issue of this thread)?

Note that the position of The Catholic Church is that teachers ARE accountable. Historically, traditionally, it has NOT embraced that teachers of doctrine are accountable ONLY to God or that they are incapable of error and thus not accountable at all, no, it has a long, long, long history and passionate embrace that if docrtrine is taught, such is fully, wholly accountable, right here and now. And it has often called such teachers “wrong” and even, on occasion, dispatched them to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke. That’s the position of The Catholic Church. But, as you note, it alone makes one - and exclusively, solely, only ONE - remarkable (but convenient)exception to all of this: ITSELF. You are trying to defend this epistemology as the best way to determine the correctness of a teacher.

.

 

[Philthy]

Is this from his First Epistle to the Corinthians? If so, I cannot find it. Please provide a specific reference. Once again, please provide a specific reference (i.e. which epistle and chapter is this from). I cannot find this quote in my copy of his writings (it may be a translation difference, who translated the copy you are using?).

I gave you the name of the book! Here’s a link that I found for anyone who actually wishes to confirm the accuracy of my quotes:

catholicfaithandreason.org/FathersofChurchClement.htm
Read paragraphs 28a and 29 toward the bottom of Clements Letter to the Corinthians.

Here’s a link to the actual book online for the Ignatious quote:
books.google.com/books?id=l62q-d4Wi20C&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=I+cried+out+while+I+was+in+your+midst,+I+spoke+with+a+loud+voice,+the+voice+of+God&source=bl&ots=ZcZk2V89AZ&sig=ZLBlIbdbLYtFZo_6m66_nl4SsH8&hl=en&ei=C4-WS7mQIJDz8QamtbG3Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=I%20cried%20out%20while%20I%20was%20in%20your%20midst%2C%20I%20spoke%20with%20a%20loud%20voice%2C%20the%20voice%20of%20God&f=false

What is odd to me, however, is that if the primacy of the pope was firmly in place from the beginning, then why weren’t all of the heretics (Arius, Nestorius, etc. etc. etc.) simply thrown out of the Church? Why bother to convene a council? The pope could have simply uttered an infallible clarification that showed the heretics to be wrong and that would have been the end of the story.

Because, believe it or not, the Pope is humble and does not wish to “lord” his authority over others, but would prefer the way of the Master, which is patient suffering in the face of unjustified disobedience. The hot headed approach you suggest sounds more typical of the splits created amongst non-Catholic Christians in power struggles. Unlike those leaders, the Pope is pope for life - he needn’t feel threatened by someone who disagrees with him.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

AmericanJosiah:

“The point has been made here that The Catholic Church particularly, exclusively and perpetually, is excused from accountability and norming because it has Apostolic Succession and this keeps it and it itself exclusively from any possibility of error. This argument, IMHO, falls flat as we recall that it declares all the Orthodox Churches to be wrong and yet that they have valid Apostolic Succession. The Catholic Church itself seems to reject the argument of Catholics here.”

.

The Orthodox do have valid Apostolic Succession. They have valid sacraments, valid priesthood, valid liturgy. What they lack is any guarantee of correct doctrine. Their beliefs, like those of any protestant denomination, are valid as long as they are in communion with the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Having Apostolic Succession does not guarantee having correct beliefs.

That is the Catholic position. Thus, all those arguments made by Catholics in this thread and others on accountability trying to justify that The Catholic Church is correct BECAUSE it has Apostolic Succession is false. Which has been my point; thanks for agreeing with me and verifying my point correct.

.

 

[IronHammer]

So, what is YOUR answer to the questions:

…

Your fear of the Catholic Church is palpable. You frantically hold to one tiny aspect of your broken dillusion, as though repeating it incessantly somehow makes it valid.

The Catholic Church IS the norma normans as established by Jesus Christ.

Your problem is you don’t trust the Catholic Church to maintain and defend the eternal Truth as given by Jesus as it was commissioned by Him. Simple as that.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

What do you think Jesus meant when He told those He had invested with His Teaching Authority “he who hears you, hears me”?

What do you think this verse means?

1. You seem to be confusing the authority to teach with one being infallible/unaccountable. Try using your presumption to any teacher in any school in the USA. YOU are teaching, so you must think you have some authority to do so. Does that make you INFALLIABLE, INCAPABLE of error, unaccountable, exempt from norming, whatever you say is what God says? We all must just exempt you from accountability/norming and rather just accept whatever you say “with docility?” I think you are making some fundamental confusions.
2. Sadly, The Catechism of The Catholic Church misleads on this point. Jesus never said this to The Catholic Church. No can any Catholic falsely use Apostolic Succession here (as if such implies correctness - a view The Catholic Church denies) since Jesus never said this to any Apostle, either (contrary to the official Catholic Catechism).

Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

1. Nothing here about The Catholic Church. Nothing here about infallibility/unaccountability. Nothing here about just accepting whatever The Catholic Church exclusively says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.”
2. You seem to be confusing authority with unaccountability/infallibility. Do you accept that President Obama has authority? Do you ergo accept with docility, as Jesus speaking, when he teaches that abortion on demand is a fundamental human right and must be protected?

This verse was written by, for, and about Catholics.

Jesus said the first; I find it absurd to argue that He was registered in a congregation legally affiliated with The Catholic Church and was subject to the Bishop in Rome. Of course, no one knows who penned Hebrews so it’s absurd to insist that he was so officially registered.

And you seem to not notice that neither verse says ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about, to or concerning The Catholic Church or infallability or unaccountability.

So, what is YOUR answer to the questions:

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

Do you think that the teachers of such doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such?

Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?

IF you answer yes to the above questions, then The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches as doctrine - no less than any and all others. And you’ve just embraced that The Catholic Church is subject to the same norming as all others. The question then becomes WHAT is the most sound norma normans among us for the norming of those doctrines among us (the issue of this thread)?

Note that the position of The Catholic Church is that teachers ARE accountable. Historically, traditionally, it has NOT embraced that teachers of doctrine are accountable ONLY to God or that they are incapable of error and thus not accountable at all, no, it has a long, long, long history and passionate embrace that if docrtrine is taught, such is fully, wholly accountable, right here and now. And it has often called such teachers “wrong” and even, on occasion, dispatched them to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke. That’s the position of The Catholic Church. But, as you note, it alone makes one - and exclusively, solely, only ONE - remarkable (but convenient)exception to all of this: ITSELF. You are trying to defend this epistemology as the best way to determine the correctness of a teacher.

.

 

[simspt]

That is the Catholic position. Thus, all those arguments made by Catholics in this thread and others on accountability trying to justify that The Catholic Church is correct BECAUSE it has Apostolic Succession is false. Which has been my point; thanks for agreeing with me and verifying my point correct.

.

Hi Josiah
What do think the Christians used as their norm between 40AD and 60AD? What role do you think the Christian community/Church played during this time? What role do you think the presbyters/bishops played from 100AD to 150AD? When people like Marcion decided to accept certain Christian writings and do away with others how did the Bishops of the Church defend against these actions? Did they appeal to the very writings that were being questioned?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

That is the Catholic position. Thus, all those arguments made by Catholics in this thread and others on accountability trying to justify that The Catholic Church is correct BECAUSE it has Apostolic Succession is false. Which has been my point; thanks for agreeing with me and verifying my point correct.

.

Hi Josiah
What do think the Christians used as their norm between 40AD and 60AD? What role do you think the Christian community/Church played during this time?

1. I simply AGREED with the Catholic who posted, “Having Apostolic Succession does not guarantee having correct beliefs.” Repeatedly, Catholics have been making the point that such was the basis for why The Catholic Church alone should designate The Catholic Church alone as incapable of incorrect beliefs. The point, often made here by Catholics, is actually a point The Catholic Church rejects.
2. If we lived in 40-60 AD, your point MIGHT be of some relevance. But all we could do is note that the only norma normans used that we know of was Scripture. And that the clear position is that teachers were regarded as accountable.
3. Jesus DID embrace accountability and never exempted The Catholic Church. Scripture affirms accountability for teachers of doctrine. Just a very few of just NT verses on this: 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 but the Revelation verse were written in the period you are focusing upon. Whereas Jesus never once used The Catholic Church or Catholic Tradition as normative (or as anything; He never so much as even MENTIONED it - for, by or as anything), He did use Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura). Here’s just 50 examples 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. There are more, of course.

The following examples are all within the period you are concerned about, all revealing Sola Scriptura: 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 Of course, during this time, The Catholic Church was not mentioned at all. For anything, about anything, concerning anything, in any context concerning any matter.

So, what is YOUR answer to the questions:

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

Do you think that the teachers of such doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such?

Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?

IF you answer yes to the above questions, then The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches as doctrine - no less than any and all others. And you’ve just embraced that The Catholic Church is subject to the same norming as all others. The question then becomes WHAT is the most sound norma normans among us for the norming of those doctrines among us (the issue of this thread)?

Note that the position of The Catholic Church is that teachers ARE accountable. Historically, traditionally, it has NOT embraced that teachers of doctrine are accountable ONLY to God or that they are incapable of error and thus not accountable at all, no, it has a long, long, long history and passionate embrace that if docrtrine is taught, such is fully, wholly accountable, right here and now. And it has often called such teachers “wrong” and even, on occasion, dispatched them to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke. That’s the position of The Catholic Church. But it alone makes one - and exclusively, solely, only ONE - remarkable (but convenient) exception to all of this: ITSELF. Some here trying to defend this epistemology as the best way to determine the correctness of a teacher.

Thank you!

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[simspt]

Do you think the practice of SS was used against Marcion?
Or was it some other method used?

 

[simspt]

Josiah,
By looking to the Church as an authentic and reliable witness to the canon, are you not violating the principle of sola scriptura?

Raymond Brown makes a very perceptive statement in his NT INTRO BOOK on page 31

“Two proposed criteria for what Scripture teaches authoritatively reflect divisions in Western Christianity since the Reformation. One is that the Spirit guides the individual reader of the Bible to religious and theological truth, i.e., “private interpretation” of the Bible. The other is that the Spirit supplies guidance through church teaching. Each criterion has difficulties. Private interpretation is logically paralyzed when two who claim to have the Spirit disagree. Not every Spirit is from God (1 John 4:1-3), but how does one know which spirit is? Moreover, at least in the mainline churches which emerged from the Reformation, church tradition of various kinds (e.g., creeds, confessions of faith) has had a role, explicit or implicit, in guiding private interpretation.”

 

[Philthy]

That is the Catholic position. Thus, all those arguments made by Catholics in this thread and others on accountability trying to justify that The Catholic Church is correct BECAUSE it has Apostolic Succession is false. Which has been my point; thanks for agreeing with me and verifying my point correct.

Well, AJ, at least the Catholic Church has a rational, functional and proven system of accountability and authority in place. The Church Fathers that Seascale quoted testify unambiguously to the hierarchy of the Church in the first 2 centuries exactly as it exists in the Catholic Church today. You, OTOH, have no such system and nothing specific, concrete and proven to replace it. There is no testimony from the early Church regarding your system. As far as I can tell all you have is a theoretical praxis of your own invention which remains entirely untested. You’re not even sure if “private” or “corporate” interpretation of the rule is the praxis or not. How can you continue to pretend that there is any accountability whatsoever in such as system??

Blessings!

 

[Pythons]

Hi

Can anyone tell me the verse(s) from which Protestants derive their belief in Sola Scriptura (I assme by the nature of the doctrine it will have a Biblical base!!?)?

Thanks
Sonny

There isn’t one ( a verse ) Sola Scriptura is derived from. The heretical teaching comes from ignorance as to what the Scriptures are.

The Church initiallly had a “Canon of Faith” which was promulgated orally and “handed down” or “passed down” ( Sacred Tradition ). Eventually some of these Sacred Traditions were put into writings.

What the Bible IS, is simply those writings that are and were “according to the Canon of Faith”. In otherwords, the Canon of Scripture reflects the Canon of Faith ( Sacred Christian Tradition ) which proceeded it. That is why certain books made it into what we know as the Bible and others didn’t. The reason: The litmus test wasn’t Scripture at all but if the texts were according to the Canon of Faith.

St Paul’s letters predated the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, therefore, St Paul’s preaching of the gospel was from the Canon of Faith.

This is why the Church ( not Scripture ) reflects the manifold wisdom of God.

 

[Philthy]

So, what is YOUR answer to the questions:

Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you think that the teachers of such doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such?
Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?

IF you answer yes to the above questions, then The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches as doctrine - no less than any and all others. And you’ve just embraced that The Catholic Church is subject to the same norming as all others. The question then becomes WHAT is the most sound norma normans among us for the norming of those doctrines among us (the issue of this thread)?

Sorry AJ, but your analytical reasoning is failing you. The fact that the CC is accountable for what it teaches does not necessitate the question of what is the most sound norma normans “AMONG US” for the “norming of doctrines”. Who is the “US” that you speak of? How did they become part of the discussion? The CC has a responsibility to God to proclaim His Truth, and all this malarkey about you and any other whiner who self-appoints themselves to the “norming committee” to evaluate Catholic doctrine is pure fantasy. In the grand scheme of doctrinal discussions and norming, you and I are irrelevant! Not even a blip on the radar, AJ. If you wish to demonstrate your worthiness for entering into the Church’s discussions on doctrine, I recommend you go through the same rigorous spiritual and intellectual discipline and development that every other Bishop involved in such matters has gone through, including election. That is the “norm” for being admitted to the committee.

Note that the position of The Catholic Church is that teachers ARE accountable.

Of course, AJ, we’ve only gone over this a few dozen times.

But it alone makes one - and exclusively, solely, only ONE - remarkable (but convenient) exception to all of this: ITSELF. Some here trying to defend this epistemology as the best way to determine the correctness of a teacher.

Sorry, but the Catholic Church is not an “itself”. There is no “itself” in discussing the Church. The Church is a corporate body united to Christ and charged with the mission of proclaiming the Gospel to the ends of the earth. A dictator can exempt “self”, but the same is not applicable to the Church, which remains a dynamic corporate entity of people.

Blessings!

 

[guanophore]

The church did not exist until after Jesus’ death. Also, I just don’t accept the church as being authoritative.

Well, that is between you, and Jesus. It was He who gave His authority to the Church.

 Did Jesus intend on Peter to start his church?

Of course not! If He did,would He have said “upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church”?

It seems that way when reading the passage in Matthew. Did he intend for this authority to extend 2,000 years. I kind of doubt it.

It seems to you that Jesus wanted Peter to start some other Church?

The authority Jesus gave to the church will remain until the Church is taken up.

Why would you doubt that Jesus would leave someone to shepherd His flock?

Why do you think He charged Peter with feeding and caring for His sheep?

 

[guanophore]

OK. I just think that the church is not any more qualified than protestant or even secular scholars when it comes to interpretations of the Bible. I am sure people within the church have slightly differing ideas of how the Bible is interpreted. I mean, I don’t know how the church decrees how something should be interpreted, but I would imagine they get a bunch of Catholic scholars together and as a group support a certain proposition. But within these meetings, their must be some differences in opinion between the scholars. Right?

No, hello. Divine Revelation does not come from human scholars, however learned.

Divine Revelation comes from the HS, and is to be received by the Church, not “figured out”.

Furthermore, no Catholic doctrines come from the Bible.

So, I am just wondering...do you accept the church's interpretations to be true because:

1. The holy spirit guides the church so that the interpretations are always correct.
2. God holds true to what the church says in heaven, so the interpretations are right be default.
3. You just have so much faith in the Catholic church that you believe they should be most accurate and the authority on the subject.

1 is correct, but the “church” that is being guided is not a group of scholars. It is those who are in the Apostolic Succession.​

#2 is just silly.

As for #3, we have so much faith in the Church because her Head is Christ, and she is ensouled by the HS, so she is without error.

 

[guanophore]

OK, so how do you know the church is the truth?

She is founded by Christ, who is Truth Himself.

 

[surritter]

Furthermore, no Catholic doctrines come from the Bible.

Wait, surely some do! What about the Trinity – while the word doesn’t appear, the concept is definitely in Scripture. And of course the Eucharist is right out of John 6.