Protestant Christians: Any problem with sola scriptura?

[benhur]

Hi benhur,

Early church had a big problem with Judaizers insisting on keeping OT law as I am sure you already know.

Do you see anything in that quote from Amos chapter 9(talking about destruction and restoration of Israel) that addresses abstaining from meat, sexual immorality or circumcision? Or were the apostles guided by the Holy Spirit and their first hand knowledge of the Lord’s teaching, making decisions for the good of the church?

I think I know where you are going, but go ahead and tell me what difference you think there is in that council.

Thanks

HI La,

Yes, the apostles were guided, and had first hand instructions from the Lord somewhat (to Peter) though not specifically on circumcision.The circumcision decision was somewhat new(though being saved by faith was not, and Paul did not circumcise gentiles before this).

The difference as you know was that these were the apostles, and we are to be *apostolic.*They had the fullness of the faith. They and close disciples thru the Lord also transferred it in Writing. Is there dogma to be added ? If so, can it truly be apostolic, and how do we know? For example, was it in their (apostles) fullness of faith the IC or the Assumption ? Is God finished with such inspired, divine revelation to mankind?. Apparently not in the CC and others. Many will say SS has lead to 30,000 divisions, but Tradition having equality with Scripture has led to new dogma (maybe not contradictory to Scripture, but certainly ‘new’).

As far as the council, even the IC and Assumption formation), one could say to look and see what God is actually doing, even per His words. God said gentiles were clean to Peter, and somewhat to Paul .They indeed received the salvation and gifts of the Holy Spirit, identical to the apostles. They (council members) could *see *that.

Likewise, perhaps the Catholic Church saw the veneration of Mary, and the belief in the IC and Assumption thru the ages per tradition, and the pope finally had ‘inspired’ heavenly confirmation that it is indeed good and True and thus binding (1854?) .

I would also say Vat 2 finally saw and admitted that the Protestants were indeed brethren. I would just ask for a further look, dropping the politics, to declare them equals, and not in eternal peril, or second class, or not in fullness to the Lord (obviously not in fullness to Rome) otherwise. I mean like the early Gentile pouring out on, one has to see a genuine pouring out on with the reformation, even counter reformation, despite the politics. The doctrine towards these "others’ must match the reality of God’s moving, what He is doing. in individuals.(Understand that is problematic if you emphasize an institutional church than say the spiritual ecclesia/church).

Blessings

 

[benhur]

This is an assumption.

Hi rc,

Yes, it is an assumption about infant baptism. What is not an assumption is the almost immediate baptism of new believers in Christ.

Blessings

PS- off topic but have shared before that church architectural evolution strongly suggests a shift from catechumen to infant baptism centuries later 6-7 th century ?

 

[benhur]

I doubt any Council doesn’t refer to Scripture, though.

Correct, and the better ones do much more than “refer” to Scripture.

Blessings

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Speaking for myself - should this unification take place I would see that as the work of the Holy Spirit and fulfillment of God’s will that “they be one, even as We are One.” I expect that the Spirit would be simultaneously be moving through all Christian communions and gathering up the scattered sons and daughters.

It may not happen until the last trumpet sounds, but even so…

For clarification sake; Those Orthodox, “not all” who are in schism with the bishop of Rome, are not separated from Catholicism as Protestants are since the sixteenth century.

The Orthodox schism is not the same as the Protestant separation.

Both Latin and Orthodox Church practice their same apostolic liturgy, same seven sacraments, same priesthood of Jesus Christ, same keys of authority to bind and loose. We are not separated from our Orthodox brethren, when it comes to the substance of our apostolic faith. Both remain One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith.

The schism belies within authority with the bishop of Rome. Without this unity with the bishop of Rome, Orthodoxy cannot exercise her divine keys upon the whole earth, only at the local level, when the bishop of Rome in unity with his brethren can exercise the divine keys upon the whole earth.

Since we are not separated in substance faith with our Orthodox brethren, there are differences in faith expression and semantics of faith understanding by that expression. Nevertheless that (sacramental) substance of the apostolic faith is never missing or divided. For the simple fact that NO MAN can separate what God has joined together.

When we remove the ancient secular political powers that influenced the schism, prayerfully blind eyes will be opened.

Thus if your waiting for “some” of the Orthodox who are out of communion with the Bishop of Rome to be in full communion? I would never place my salvation for a unification of a schism. But seek to those divine mysteries revealed by God in order to have communion with God, which both Roman Catholics and Orthodox possess.

Peace be with you

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

Yes, it is an assumption about infant baptism. What is not an assumption is the almost immediate baptism of new believers in Christ.

Blessings

PS- off topic but have shared before that church architectural evolution strongly suggests a shift from catechumen to infant baptism centuries later 6-7 th century ?

Hey ben, sorry but I strongly disagree with you here.

Origen writes in*Homily 8 on Leviticus:

“In the Church, Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous.”

And inHomily 5 on Romanshe writes:

“The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must by washed away through water and the Spirit.”

This is long before the 6th and 7th centuries!

And this is from the man who gave us the earliest correct list of the 27 letter New Testament canon!

 

[Lenten_ashes]

HI La,

Yes, the apostles were guided, and had first hand instructions from the Lord somewhat (to Peter) though not specifically on circumcision.The circumcision decision was somewhat new(though being saved by faith was not, and Paul did not circumcise gentiles before this).

The difference as you know was that these were the apostles, and we are to be *apostolic.*They had the fullness of the faith. They and close disciples thru the Lord also transferred it in Writing. Is there dogma to be added ? If so, can it truly be apostolic, and how do we know? For example, was it in their (apostles) fullness of faith the IC or the Assumption ? Is God finished with such inspired, divine revelation to mankind?. Apparently not in the CC and others. Many will say SS has lead to 30,000 divisions, but Tradition having equality with Scripture has led to new dogma (maybe not contradictory to Scripture, but certainly ‘new’).

As far as the council, even the IC and Assumption formation), one could say to look and see what God is actually doing, even per His words. God said gentiles were clean to Peter, and somewhat to Paul .They indeed received the salvation and gifts of the Holy Spirit, identical to the apostles. They (council members) could *see *that.

Likewise, perhaps the Catholic Church saw the veneration of Mary, and the belief in the IC and Assumption thru the ages per tradition, and the pope finally had ‘inspired’ heavenly confirmation that it is indeed good and True and thus binding (1854?) .

I would also say Vat 2 finally saw and admitted that the Protestants were indeed brethren. I would just ask for a further look, dropping the politics, to declare them equals, and not in eternal peril, or second class, or not in fullness to the Lord (obviously not in fullness to Rome) otherwise. I mean like the early Gentile pouring out on, one has to see a genuine pouring out on with the reformation, even counter reformation, despite the politics. The doctrine towards these "others’ must match the reality of God’s moving, what He is doing. in individuals.(Understand that is problematic if you emphasize an institutional church than say the spiritual ecclesia/church).

Blessings

Hi benhur,

Just so you know, I personally consider you a brother and a equal Christian in the Lord. and I apologize if I have come across as unruly in this forum. A few people have said that now and where there’s smoke there is fire, so I must be doing something wrong.

Now i totally disagree with SS and have already verbalized what I think about it, so I’ll leave that part be.

And I get why protestants are so cautious about Mary and the Church’s declarations about her, with “evolving doctrines”. I would say first that all protestants are trusting in the “Decree of Damasus”, 382AD for the canon that they hold so dear. A Catholic Pope, whom most see as evil and insidious.(I was protestant so I know how they talk lol) So if they got that right, and got everything right to include the Trinity at Nicea in 325 AD, why do they not continue to trust in the Church? And if the Church went off the deep end, when exactly did this happen?

The trust issue really comes down to a few verses of scripture. As you know, this is the passage that separates us:

Matthew 16:16-19

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,** and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”**

That passage literally screams infallibility and a promise of the Holy Spirit to remain with Peter and his office. Of course you interpret to mean something else, but if Catholics are right, then the Church has scriptural backing for these doctrines that evolve over time.

Many non-Catholics talk about Tradition and say, how in the world can you trust THAT? And I would respond with one word - PEDIGREE. There is only one Church(well two if you count orthodoxy) that has a unbroken chain of succession dating back to the apostles. And one Church that has been holding councils and making decrees and determining what is inspired, etc. If any other church made these kind of claims without that pedigree, I would totally dismiss them as new age cults with no legs to stand on.

Is the Lord done speaking to His church and revealing the fullness of the Truth? Jesus told the apostles He will not leave them as orphans John 14:18. And we know after He resurrected He appeared to them., even in different forms. We also know that not everything was written down from reading John 21:25 and John 16:12. So I would contend that the Church is a live institution that helps us see through this foggy mirror a little bit clearer 1 Corinthians 13:12

The Lord be with you.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

A clarification post to the subject of “development of doctrine”.

1. There are no new divine revelations since the last apostle
2. A doctrine proclaimed officially by the Church is binding upon all believers
3. A doctrine proclaimed by the Church does not contradict sacred Scripture nor sacred Tradition
4. A doctrine proclaimed and made to clarify an already apostolic faith that was handed down both orally and written
5. A doctrine proclaimed and made to advance the understanding of what is already believed and to defeat any heretical teachings.
6. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ has never made it to the level of doctrine or binding upon all believers, for the simple fact, none of the faithful contested the crucifixion or denied it. The Crucifixion remains suspended in faith and is not declared officially a doctrine by the Church.

I mention the crucifixion because there are those things we received from the apostles by Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture that are not made doctrine, because they are never contested.

1. The Church proclaims a Christian doctrine not to invent or introduce a new divine revelation. But to clarify, in understanding and to protect the apostolic faith from changing or to defend the apostolic faith when comes under attack or is threatened to infect the flock of Jesus Christ.
2. Research each doctrine of the Catholic Church, and you will find her defending her already apostolic faith against heretics, and clarifying her faith in a doctrine to defeat such man made ideologies as communism, for one example came the Immaculate Conception which was confirmed and followed by (public recorded ) signs and wonders, that ultimately dealt communism a mortal blow.

Peace be with you

 

[Lenten_ashes]

A clarification post to the subject of “development of doctrine”.

1. There are no new divine revelations since the last apostle
2. A doctrine proclaimed officially by the Church is binding upon all believers
3. A doctrine proclaimed by the Church does not contradict sacred Scripture nor sacred Tradition
4. A doctrine proclaimed and made to clarify an already apostolic faith that was handed down both orally and written
5. A doctrine proclaimed and made to advance the understanding of what is already believed and to defeat any heretical teachings.
6. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ has never made it to the level of doctrine or binding upon all believers, for the simple fact, none of the faithful contested the crucifixion or denied it. The Crucifixion remains suspended in faith and is not declared officially a doctrine by the Church.

I mention the crucifixion because there are those things we received from the apostles by Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture that are not made doctrine, because they are never contested.

1. The Church proclaims a Christian doctrine not to invent or introduce a new divine revelation. But to clarify, in understanding and to protect the apostolic faith from changing or to defend the apostolic faith when comes under attack or is threatened to infect the flock of Jesus Christ.
2. Research each doctrine of the Catholic Church, and you will find her defending her already apostolic faith against heretics, and clarifying her faith in a doctrine to defeat such man made ideologies as communism, for one example came the Immaculate Conception which was confirmed and followed by (public recorded ) signs and wonders, that ultimately dealt communism a mortal blow.

Peace be with you

Very well stated.

Personally, and I must be honest, I feel comfortable defending pretty much all doctrine except the Immaculate Conception because the lack of scriptural support and Patristic writings on this.

But if Church says it, we can be confident that it was already a organic belief from within.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13711140]
We have both seen some of the documents that have been written and I think that the reports indicate the magnitude of the problems associated with the divisions between us. While I have tremendous respect for anyone who undertakes this important work, I struggle with the results thus far. **In fact in the Catholic tradition, we Catholics are allowed to question our officials, even including the Bishop of Rome. We are also allowed to disagree on things like policy and practice, but not doctrine, all without being considered to be ‘disloyal’ or disrespectful. ** Personally, I am disappointed that the dialogue committees have not progressed at a faster rate to resolve our differences. I am also afraid that Lutheranism is morphing so rapidly that it will be impossible to reach an agreement , meaning that the Lutheran ‘negotiators’ will be replaced by the next generation and that these newer members of the dialogue will disagree with the progress that has been made by their predecessors. As such, it seems to me that a process which is designed to work quickly would have a better chance of success.

That’s fine, Topper. I think its important to allow dialogue understanding what each side allows of it’s members.
I also understand and have the same yearnings for a quicker pace, without yielding to compromise on doctrine.

As an example, the ILC is only about 20 years old now. How can we have any confidence that it will hold the same positions 20 years from now if the dialogue takes that long to conclude.

Well, the organization represents the Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran) tradition in it’s confessional for, which has existed since the Reformation era. That said, Lutheran “development of doctrine” hasn’t always been in the direction of maintaining orthodoxy, so I understand the concern.

As you know, in the 50 years since the Catholic/ Lutheran dialogue began, they still have not addressed the subject of Papal Supremacy. How many more generations must pass before this critical issue is discussed?

On this I agree, too, because this is above all else the single most important topic. It is the elephant in the room. Then again, it has been the elephant in the room between Catholicism and Orthodoxy for twice as long.

And please correct me if I have misunderstood, but I read what you wrote as saying that you would leave Lutheranism and join a unified RCC/Orthodoxy. Is that correct?

Of course you realize that if the CC and the Orthodox were to reach full communion, there would be seven Sacraments. The Mass would be a Sacrifice. Salvation would NOT be by Faith Alone, not any of the various definitions of Faith Alone. Sola Scriptura would have absolutely no place in such a combined RCC/EOC reunion.

Are you saying that you would be willing to change your doctrinal positions such that you would be able to believe, support, and teach these doctrinal positions?

I would consider the reunification of the Western and Eastern churches to be such an undeniable, such an irresistible indication of the Holy Spirit moving in His Church Militant that I could do no other.

On the other hand, such reconciliation may leave the definition of papal primacy altered, the definitions of the Marian doctrine understood differently, as well as that of the western understanding of Purgatory, indulgences, and numerous other developments unique to the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, that all of us would be pondering the Church reformulated.

As for SS, a return to truly ecumenical councils would be a welcome replacement to sola scriptura as practiced by some, welcome because of a return to the practices and teachings prevalent in the Church prior to the Great Schism.

Jon

 

[PJM]

Could you elaborate what this statement is saying…I mean, what does the Nicene creed contradict?

Thanks for asking, I’ll be looking for that information too

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

If you understand what the point is I would be interested in knowing. I have asked in an earlier post for clarification and none has been offered, can you help?

Duh! I’m 71 and don’t recall the topic; PLEASE refresh my memory and I WILL be happy to respond to it. SORRY!

God Bless,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Hi Wannano,

The church teaches that while God has given us sacraments, He is not bound by those sacraments

Actually .God is {BY HIS CHOICE]… I share this for the sake of those who may not know

A right understanding of the Power of the THEE Key’s {all of them} in Mt 16:18-19}

Please take careful note of the following:

[18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church,{singular} and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the {all of} keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth,** it shall be bound also in heaven:** and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth**, it shall be loosed also in heaven**.

Not always understood here is the full and precise meaning of the terms : to BIND & or to LOOSE.

At that time; in that place these were common Rabbi TERMS, enforceable in Jewish courts of Law.

In EFFECT they granted TOTAL and Complete, unencumbered Powers of Governance. In this instance Jesus granted such, by absolute necessity, as He was soon to Die; and Mt. 28:19-20 tells us that before ascending back to the Father, He, Jesus changed the MANDATE of Mt. 10: 1-8 {verses 5 &6} to “YOU GO!” only to the house of Israel TO “YOU GO to the ENTIRE WORLD”; thus it is Jesus Himself who institutes SUCCESSION; and HAD to establish an authority LEFT here on earth to begin to fulfill that Mission.

So with the KEY’s came the essential and necessary authority & POWER to Govern the New “My Church” in the name of Jesus. READ John 17:17-20 very carefully

And this was no NEW innovation on the part of Jesus. It was common practice for walled in cites {such as Jerusalem was and remains} to have a KING, who would appoint a VISAR, a man charged with running the CITIES day-to-day affairs with absolute authority ANSWERABLE ONLY to “thee KING”. And THIS then is the authority given to Peter & successors for “MY CHURCH.”

We see evidence of this in scripture with the thief on the cross who likely was not baptized and with Cornelius’s household

This thief was :heaven bound both by Baptism of Desire and God’s Promise. So in THAT sense you were COMPLETELY correct in your first statement. Although it maight have been worded differently.

There’s also baptism of blood which is suffering martydom for the faith.

So really it’s not a big deal what benhur’s position is on this, I was just curious because I have not chatted with him yet(I don’t think) and since protestants have varying opinions, I like to know who I’m talking to.

Have a great day in the Lord.

Great POST!

Thanks,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Hi La,

Actually I thought i was strongly referring to whether baptism is regenerational or not, much like was circumcision or not. I mean Jesus did not tell Nicodemus to go get recircumcised. But that is another topic.

But does the CC have one infallibe doctrine that is not claimed to be scriptural , that the bible has not legitimized even provided a rule of faith ?

Blessings

Sure: the Assumption of Mary Body and SOUL into heaven is an example of such:thumbsup:

Blessings,

PJM

 

[PJM]

Hi La’

I guess I am asking is a three legged stool really a three legged stool, if the other two legs must answer to, stand on, not contradict, the constant Holy Scripture leg ?

Blessings

For those who may not understand the above:

Q. 1. What are the 3 Pillars of the Church Authority?

A. 1. The 3 Pillars of the Church Authority are:

(1) Sacred Scripture (The Holy Bible)

(2) Sacred Tradition (The History of the Catholic Church)

(3) Living Magisterium (The Catholic Church’s Teaching Authority)

To which I replied the Assumption of Mary Body & Soul into heaven. Amen!

PJM

 

[benhur]

Sure: the Assumption of Mary Body and SOUL into heaven is an example of such:thumbsup:

Blessings,

PJM

So there is no biblical precedent ?

 

[benhur]

Hey ben, sorry but I strongly disagree with you here.

Origen writes in*Homily 8 on Leviticus:

“In the Church, Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous.”

And inHomily 5 on Romanshe writes:

“The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must by washed away through water and the Spirit.”

This is long before the 6th and 7th centuries!

And this is from the man who gave us the earliest correct list of the 27 letter New Testament canon!

Ok.maybe .did not say there was not infant baptism, but said do not think it was “widespread and prevalent” and relative to catechumen, which did diminish immensely and church buildings stopped architecture to accommodate almost two ‘bodies’’ (cathechumen and baptized ).

Blessings

 

[spedteacherita]

For those who may not understand the above:

Q. 1. What are the 3 Pillars of the Church Authority?

A. 1. The 3 Pillars of the Church Authority are:

(1) Sacred Scripture (The Holy Bible)

(2) Sacred Tradition (The History of the Catholic Church)

(3) Living Magisterium (The Catholic Church’s Teaching Authority)

To which I replied the Assumption of Mary Body & Soul into heaven. Amen!

PJM

I post this question also, because I don’t see the doctrines in the Scriptures…
Doesn’t this leave the opportunity for doctrine to be made up as time went along? I still have problems with the Marian doctrines yet. (Please, friends, don’t jump on me about this) I just don’t see any of the 1st or 2nd century speak to them. Why does it take till the mid 1800’s and mid 1900’s to have them become official teachings in the Church.

I posted this question here because I don’t see the doctrines clearly taught in Scripture (related to the Sola Scriptura topic) Again, I am trying to be respectful of your teachings - I just want to understand totally.

God bless, all!

Rita

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I post this question also, because I don’t see the doctrines in the Scriptures…
Doesn’t this leave the opportunity for doctrine to be made up as time went along? I still have problems with the Marian doctrines yet. (Please, friends, don’t jump on me about this) I just don’t see any of the 1st or 2nd century speak to them. Why does it take till the mid 1800’s and mid 1900’s to have them become official teachings in the Church.

I posted this question here because I don’t see the doctrines clearly taught in Scripture (related to the Sola Scriptura topic) Again, I am trying to be respectful of your teachings - I just want to understand totally.

God bless, all!

Rita

Based on what I have seen, councils are held to refute objections made about Church teaching/belief. No major backlash= no need for councils and official doctrine.

Nicea 325AD was a response to Arianism; II Nicea in response to Iconoclasm and Trent was prompted by Reformers.

The early reformers held the blessed Mother in very high regard. Wasn’t until later when people started saying she wasn’t a virgin, etc. So, that would explain the timing.

Now, why there is little to no Patristic writings on this is puzzling to me. But if they got everything else right it stands to reason they are correct on this too.

The Lord be with you.

 

[commenter]

I post this question also, because I don’t see the doctrines in the Scriptures…
Doesn’t this leave the opportunity for doctrine to be made up as time went along? I still have problems with the Marian doctrines yet. (Please, friends, don’t jump on me about this) I just don’t see any of the 1st or 2nd century speak to them. Why does it take till the mid 1800’s and mid 1900’s to have them become official teachings in the Church.

I posted this question here because I don’t see the doctrines clearly taught in Scripture (related to the Sola Scriptura topic) Again, I am trying to be respectful of your teachings - I just want to understand totally.

Rita

Dogmas don’t usually get formally defined unless/until they are challenged or doubted. Then theologians look closely into the matter, separate out what is essential, decide if this is part of the actual Christian Faith, or just a pious misunderstanding, or maybe just a permissible matter for private opinion. This may take a long time. Then, in rare cases, the Church defines it as dogma. Belief in the Assumption of Mary goes way back in different places.

Why defined in one century and not another? Because the needs of one century vary from another. I can guess why the Assumption was defined in 1950, though I don’t want to go off on that tangent.

Keep in mind here are some doctrines “made up” (your words) after the last apostle died:

• we declare there should be Sacred Tradition. This includes things like the Trinity, and much else.
• we declare there should be a New Testament; the OT is still considered scripture;
• we declare the New Testament should include these 27 books, excluding the great majority of possibles;
• we declare Sacred Tradition will exclude the great majority of Christian traditions;
• we designate certain ancients as special authority - “Early Church Fathers”; other prominent teachers we designate as “heretics”

Incredibly the great majority of Protestants accept all those “made-ups”!
Truly, you strain at a gnat (Assumption), and swallow the camel.
It would be more credible to reject the RCC for arrogance for designating certain books a “New Testament”. The most controversial, authoritarian acts of the Magisterium would arguably be the (ruthless?) rejection of most scriptures, and shocking rejection of 99% of Christian traditions as not being “Sacred Tradition”. If you can accept that… (and you do) then…

I can’t understand the friendly Lutheran perception of the Magisterium as mostly good natured, sometimes misguided and clumsy, sometimes wise, taking on too much extra baggage to the Word of God, nice humans but strictly human. Either Protestants should be seeking to crush the Magisterium, or try to follow its leadership, but not “hey, let’s do lunch”.

It seems the Magisterium is either cruel for eliminating the vast majority of scriptures, maybe killing the brave gnostics and others who wrote them - Rome still, in 2016, cruelly represses the great majority of gospels, epistles, etc from the NT - or else, the Magisterium is part of the Hand of God.

 

[Cyril_Of_Canada]

I’m bowing out of this discussion, though I wasn’t really in it to begin with. I’m just tired of Sol Scriptura altogether and surprised this discussion has gone as long as it already has.