S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
Pretty good summary
- Status
B
benhur
Guest
Hi ericc,
Thought this was relevant to our previous discussion, though deciding and speaking the truth on a matter for decision makers may or may not be one in the same:
“The role of acting as the voice of the Church is not, however, to be restricted to any hierarchical order within the Church, still less to a single see. In principle, any bishop, priest or *layman *may be *called by the Holy Spirit *to proclaim the true faith.”
goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523 from “conclusion”
“Again, the individual is capable of divine revelation and full assurance. That is not exclusive to the Church hierarchy .” post # 111
Blessings
R
Rohzek
Guest
The Church Fathers and Holy Latin writers say otherwise. They say that whomever has faith therefore has the keys of binding and loosing. For the most extreme interpretations that closely resemble Protestant claims see St. Paschasius Radbertus, St. Hrabanus Maurus, and St. Hilary of Poitiers. Their positions are remarkably close to benhur’s, to say the least. See the following for translations and excerpts (I’d post them in this sub-forum again, but it takes a long time):I am not T
The power to bind and loose is given by Christ, not everyone has it. Tell him he carried the institutional separation too far. One thing is clear, if one hasn’t been given that power to bind and loose, don’t call it sour grapes. And there are good reasons why not everyone has been given that power.
God is the creator of that institution he called the Church. In fact he started way back during Moses times by segregating the Levites to do priestly/temple duties and imposing numerous rules on rituals and so on. And he started the ball rolling again by instructing that disputes be taken to the Church for settlement.
Forget about the fingers. Either one has the authority or one doesn’t.
I am not claiming individuals are incapable of divine giftings. I am claiming that not all have the authority even if they have been gifted, are good and holy people.
shamelessorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/latin-exegetical-interpretations-of-matthew-1618-19-from-late-antiquity-to-the-twelfth-century/
E
ericc
Guest
The fruits will reveal whether that is His lead or self-led i.e. where one wishes to go
Agree
Disagreements shouldn’t led to disunity, contradicting doctrines or disobedience or many thousands of denominations.
Self dignity on the topic of personal interpretation is not scriptural. Who knows or can identify who is capable of divine revelation and with full assurance? Who is given that authority to decide? If the answer is self, then it becomes circular.
For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement.
Anyone in the ecclessia has some authority, true, but not all can speak for the Church. One’s authority must be instituted by God. One’s personal opinion can not speak for the Church even if it happens to coincide with the Church. It may mislead others to think one is authorized to speak on behalf of the Church on ALL other personal opinions and that which may vary. You may recognized that danger even today in the world around us. “The devil may slip in one lie among a thousand truths” or something like that.
B
benhur
Guest
OK ,I see you are not budging. Whatever you propose is also circular. For a church to say she has discerned that she is the only authority is also circular.
Amen
Yes, of course, to the extent that you have authority is the extent you speak for the church . Thank you for saying we all have some God given authority.
Then how do you separate, or should you, a personal opinion that is exactly what the church says ? That can lead to emphasize protecting the status quo magisterioum more than just speaking the Truth.
Don’t think that is the real problem
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Jon-
Why did it take the Early Church so long to produce the gospels?
At best, the synoptics were written 20-25 years after the resurrection; more conservatively, they were not completed until 35 or more years later. In the case of John’s gospel, six decades passed before it was penned.
If Sola Scriptura is the norm that norms, etc, why wasn’t the Church inspired to write the gospels immediately?
Could it be that during the lifetimes of the Twelve, Oral Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church (based upon the authority of living apostles) in conjunction with the pre-existing OT were considered to be the gold standard for doctrinal definition?
After all, how could Christian doctrine based upon the words of Jesus be formulated in the decades prior to the recording of those words in inspired texts?
Only if the Oral Tradition and Magisterium of the Church were held to be definitive.
Countless people heard the gospel, believed and were baptized, and even died true to the faith BEFORE the gospels were ever written. These believers COULD NOT practice sola scriptura as it is commonly (mis)understood by millions of non-Catholic Christians today.
Therefore, I submit to you that sola scriptura is a theological novelty that was unknown to the apostles and to the Early Church. It is a tradition of (Protestant) men.
Why did it take the Early Church so long to produce the gospels?
At best, the synoptics were written 20-25 years after the resurrection; more conservatively, they were not completed until 35 or more years later. In the case of John’s gospel, six decades passed before it was penned.
If Sola Scriptura is the norm that norms, etc, why wasn’t the Church inspired to write the gospels immediately?
Could it be that during the lifetimes of the Twelve, Oral Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church (based upon the authority of living apostles) in conjunction with the pre-existing OT were considered to be the gold standard for doctrinal definition?
After all, how could Christian doctrine based upon the words of Jesus be formulated in the decades prior to the recording of those words in inspired texts?
Only if the Oral Tradition and Magisterium of the Church were held to be definitive.
Countless people heard the gospel, believed and were baptized, and even died true to the faith BEFORE the gospels were ever written. These believers COULD NOT practice sola scriptura as it is commonly (mis)understood by millions of non-Catholic Christians today.
Therefore, I submit to you that sola scriptura is a theological novelty that was unknown to the apostles and to the Early Church. It is a tradition of (Protestant) men.
B
benhur
Guest
Hi Randy,Jon-
Why did it take the Early Church so long to produce the gospels?
At best, the synoptics were written 20-25 years after the resurrection; more conservatively, they were not completed until 35 or more years later. In the case of John’s gospel, six decades passed before it was penned.
If Sola Scriptura is the norm that norms, etc, why wasn’t the Church inspired to write the gospels immediately?
Could it be that during the lifetimes of the Twelve, Oral Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church (based upon the authority of living apostles) in conjunction with the pre-existing OT were considered to be the gold standard for doctrinal definition?
After all, how could Christian doctrine based upon the words of Jesus be formulated in the decades prior to the recording of those words in inspired texts?
Only if the Oral Tradition and Magisterium of the Church were held to be definitive.
Countless people heard the gospel, believed and were baptized, and even died true to the faith BEFORE the gospels were ever written. These believers COULD NOT practice sola scriptura as it is commonly (mis)understood by millions of non-Catholic Christians today.
Therefore, I submit to you that sola scriptura is a theological novelty that was unknown to the apostles and to the Early Church. It is a tradition of (Protestant) men.
It seems that you argue that because Oral Word was first ,nothing could be more normative. The problem is you assume that the oral Word will afterwards rest upon your magisterium.
WE all agree that the apostles had full authority to speak the Word, and that the first church was founded and operated by such. God directly chose the twelve (and Paul) thru Jesus. This was much the fashion of previous dispensations/OT with the Prophets, even some kings etc.
The assumption then comes when we say succeeding presbyters are equally or unconditionally as authoritative, as if Jesus directly chose them, and not thru other “men”.
A bit like how “men”, the apostles, cast lots for Judas’s replacement, and we never hear the chosen one’s name again. Yet Christ chose Paul, and he built much of the church and Writ even, and is mentioned more than even Peter.
Now the undisputed authoritative apostles (and their closest associates) were inspired to give us Writ. What presumption is it to think that all successors, even a thousand years later, were/are equal to either the Oral or Writ from God’s directly chosen ?
SS is not debunked by first rule of the oral. Can Joshua say he is equal or sole interpreter of the Writ given by Moses ? After all, Joshua was around way before the Writ and appointed as successor. Or was not now Joshua, and the rest of us, forever bound by such Writ ?
From another thread:
"My response is that the church "received " Holy Writ and kept it , preserved it etc… But we also are to "receive’’ Christ , as obedience to the gospel. Receiving Christ does not make us equal to Christ. It is like Mary gave us Jesus, but she is not equal to Christ. The Church received Writ from God, but that does not make the church thereafter equal to the God breathed authority of Writ.
That is, the right to impose an obligation to a rule of faith must first be shown to be scriptural. Even that Scripture has more authority than a pope or council, for we know absolutely for sure, by faith, that scripture is God breathed, but a close second is councils or offices as God led. It is a close second only because of the superlative and first right of scripture."
Even you Randy asked in post #100 to show where one doctrine in CC is not scriptural.
Blessings
:
Because having the apostles and their followers around made it unnecessary.
Absolutely.
After all, how could Christian doctrine based upon the words of Jesus be formulated in the decades prior to the recording of those words in inspired texts?
Randy, you’re trying to create a caricature of sola scriptura that I don’t acknowledge. Sola scriptura, as a practice, is post-apostolic era. To argue that sola scriptura, as a practice was used (other than for the OT) isn’t necessary or tenable. That’s not the point of the practice. In many ways, it was a response to the already existing division within the Church, and what the Lutheran Reformers viewed as abuses and errors that had developed in the western Church.
But it isn’t a novelty. You yourself asked the question which Catholic doctrine is incompatible with scripture. Obviously, you believe that they are, and I suspect, you believe they should be. That’s all sola scriptura demands, that if one is held to a doctrine, that it be at least implicit in scripture. Tradition can and should be used to defend and support doctrine, to teach the faith, to preserve scripturally sound practices within the Church.
And let’s face it. since the 7th Council, there have been significant disagreements between the patriarchates of the Church (even if we ignore the OO). In that way, Tradition failed to keep the Church unified, though that doesn’t deny that there is division amongst those who practice *sola scriptura *. The division is because of human sin, not because of hermeneutical principles and practice.
Jon
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
But then we are faced with the problem of whose interpretation of scripture is to be accepted.
I say that the Assumption of Mary is implicit in scripture; you may disagree.
I accept the doctrine on the strength of it being found explicitly in Tradition, implicitly in Scripture and promulgated by an infallible Magisterium.
You reject it because you do not find it taught explicitly or implicitly in scripture - as you (and your relatively nouveau spiritual forefathers) interpret those scriptures. And no appeal to Sacred Tradition or the Magisterium can move you to do otherwise.
Thus, sola scriptura and private judgment are the pillars upon which Protestant theology rests.
B
benhur
Guest
Hi Randy,
Well as Jon pointed out, it was not necessary immediately due to the presence of the apostles .Their oral Word sufficed immediately. However, some time later those same apostles of the Oral Word found it necessary to put it to Writing. A few writers even tell us why. To set the record straight, the oral record straight. As we justify councils (to set the record straight relative to falsities), so much of NT Writ did/does also. As time went on, error or doubters crept in, and nothing like getting it in writing to help.
“To write unto thee… That thou mightest know the *certainty *of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed (orally).” Luke 1:4
Further, you could not write second Corinthians till you first wrote first Corinthians, and that could not be written till the church in Corinth was first established. I mean how immediate do you want it to be ?
Not to mention that the church spread, and maybe the apostle was now in Rome, and no longer in Corinth, and writing in full authority was much easier and expedient.
Now for sure just as the Oral Word could be and was twisted to one’s destruction, so could Writ be twisted. As Jon has continually pointed out , sin divides, and is not a respecter of Tradition nor Writ. But again for sure, Writ and its Traditions can help all sheep not to stray.
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
Hi R,
Any magisterium methodology is problematic, subject to corruption/sin.
Oral was first and you had problems, dissenters. Writ came next and had problems and dissenters. Then came councils and you still had problems and dissenters.
Yet I don’t think any major movement away from your magisterium did not look at all three methods for answers. The success of any investigation into the truth of a matter uses all three, but rests more heavily on the original founders and their writings. That is the Christian “tradition”. That is a better pillar than those relying on those further removed from the "scene’’.
Blessings
Actually, Randy, most of the Lutheran reformers did accept the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, and they accepted it without Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus. And my acceptance of it today is irrespective of it. What we won’t do is bind the conscience of the believer to it
because, as you say, it is not explicit or implicit. And since it does no harm to the Gospel ( I think it a positive pious belief) it is idiaphoron.
Take note, I didn’t decide it was idiaphoron, so it isn’t private judgement.
There’s more evidence that a blanket statement that we are not influenced by Tradition is false. And I will respond later.
Jon
B
benhur
Guest
Hi Randy,
Why did it take so long (1900 years)? Why was not the proclamation immediate ?
It goes both ways. When Writ was received, the readers immediately deemed it normative, despite not having what we have today: almost two thousand years of magisterium history of interpretation, and patristic writings, and councils.
Blessings
E
ericc
Guest
It is hardly circular. The Church didn’t claim for herself. Jesus said to take it to the Church. Unless you doubt Jesus said that. But we are discussing personal interpretation not the Church.
Of course we all do have some authority. For example, we all have authority to baptized another in life-death situation in the absence of clergy. And of course the question you would like to know is whether you have any imposed limits to speak on behalf of the Church. Obviously one single person couldn’t possibly know everything or know it infallibly and typically limited to one’s education and experience. And you wouldn’t want to put down another’s interpretation that you find different from yours because you accept on principle that the other person has as much right as you have to interpret what they want.
As the Egyptian eunuch said, without a guide , how can one know? For us, we can check against what the Church teaches. What/who do you check against? You wouldn’t want to check against a book that can not speak and that a thousand other souls claim different messages received on the same chapter/verse. Inkblot test?
How can it not be a problem? A thousand persons can claim a thousand different interpretations and all claim to speak for the Church?
E
ericc
Guest
As I have said previously, anyone can speak truth. The gifts are given to many even to those that didn’t walk together as the Lord has said. However, it is clear that even those that didn’t walk together do sing from the same hymn book. My focus is more of those that don’t. Those that preached a different gospel. Those that denies the Church that Jesus himself built on Peter. Those that reject the Shepard that Jesus appointed when it was time for him to leave the Apostles.
I’d like to reiterate the point I made previously. It is fine to disagree (a mechanism has been set up by Jesus to resolve issues) but it is not fine to leave and sing a different tune.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Good post.Jon-
Why did it take the Early Church so long to produce the gospels?
At best, the synoptics were written 20-25 years after the resurrection; more conservatively, they were not completed until 35 or more years later. In the case of John’s gospel, six decades passed before it was penned.
If Sola Scriptura is the norm that norms, etc, why wasn’t the Church inspired to write the gospels immediately?
Could it be that during the lifetimes of the Twelve, Oral Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church (based upon the authority of living apostles) in conjunction with the pre-existing OT were considered to be the gold standard for doctrinal definition?
After all, how could Christian doctrine based upon the words of Jesus be formulated in the decades prior to the recording of those words in inspired texts?
Only if the Oral Tradition and Magisterium of the Church were held to be definitive.
Countless people heard the gospel, believed and were baptized, and even died true to the faith BEFORE the gospels were ever written. These believers COULD NOT practice sola scriptura as it is commonly (mis)understood by millions of non-Catholic Christians today.
Therefore, I submit to you that sola scriptura is a theological novelty that was unknown to the apostles and to the Early Church. It is a tradition of (Protestant) men.
I’d say SS is a modern day assumption by our separated brethren.
Looking at the 3 Abrahamic faiths, all rely on something outside their man texts. Judaism has the Talmud, Islam has Hadith and of course we have the magisterium and capital “T” tradition.
The few denominations that are close to us actually practice “Prima scriptura”. And that is sort of what Catholicism practices. So we aren’t all that far apart from that faction of protestant Christendom.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Randy,
“The problems that Protestantism faced here were famously set out by John Dryden (1631-1700) in his satirical poem “Religio Laici” (A Layperson’s Religion) (1682). **Dryden here argued that the great Protestant emphasis on the Bible merely led to a proliferation of heresy, due to the absence of any universally acknowledged, authoritative interpreter. ** The attitude toward biblical interpretation found within Protestantism, Dryden argues, not merely leaves it powerless to resist heresy, but actually encourages the emergence of heresy, through Protestantism’s naïve idea that ordinary Christians will be led, inerrantly and inevitably, to orthodoxy as they browse the scriptural pages. The text of Scripture was open to all; **but what of the rule by which it was to be interpreted? ** Protestants agreed upon and respected a common authority [Scripture], but they had no shared notion of a meta-authority.” Alister McGrath, “Heresy, A History of Defending the Truth”, pg. 52
“The long history of Christian interpretation of the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that certain texts are interpreted in very different ways by different groups. This poses the critically important question, **Who is authorized to adjudicate **between such interpretations of the New Testament?” McGrath, “History”, pg. 51
As we know, there are numerous ecclesiastical communities that make conflicting claims about what Scripture really says on a variety of topics. As McGrath notes, within Protestantism, there is no way to settle these disputes.
Quoting Dryden, and with no dissenting comments from McGrath:
“The attitude toward biblical interpretation found within Protestantism, Dryden argues, not merely leaves it powerless to resist heresy, but actually encourages the emergence of heresy, through Protestantism’s naïve idea that ordinary Christians will be led, inerrantly and inevitably, to orthodoxy as they browse the scriptural pages.”
If Sola Scriptura is not only powerless to resist heresy, but actually encourages it, then doesn’t this prove that Sola Scriptura is NOT a doctrine taught by Christ, the Apostles or the Fathers?
God Bless, Topper
Exactly. In addition, the Great Anglican Scholar makes the following comments about Sola Scriptura:
“The problems that Protestantism faced here were famously set out by John Dryden (1631-1700) in his satirical poem “Religio Laici” (A Layperson’s Religion) (1682). **Dryden here argued that the great Protestant emphasis on the Bible merely led to a proliferation of heresy, due to the absence of any universally acknowledged, authoritative interpreter. ** The attitude toward biblical interpretation found within Protestantism, Dryden argues, not merely leaves it powerless to resist heresy, but actually encourages the emergence of heresy, through Protestantism’s naïve idea that ordinary Christians will be led, inerrantly and inevitably, to orthodoxy as they browse the scriptural pages. The text of Scripture was open to all; **but what of the rule by which it was to be interpreted? ** Protestants agreed upon and respected a common authority [Scripture], but they had no shared notion of a meta-authority.” Alister McGrath, “Heresy, A History of Defending the Truth”, pg. 52
“The long history of Christian interpretation of the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that certain texts are interpreted in very different ways by different groups. This poses the critically important question, **Who is authorized to adjudicate **between such interpretations of the New Testament?” McGrath, “History”, pg. 51
As we know, there are numerous ecclesiastical communities that make conflicting claims about what Scripture really says on a variety of topics. As McGrath notes, within Protestantism, there is no way to settle these disputes.
Quoting Dryden, and with no dissenting comments from McGrath:
“The attitude toward biblical interpretation found within Protestantism, Dryden argues, not merely leaves it powerless to resist heresy, but actually encourages the emergence of heresy, through Protestantism’s naïve idea that ordinary Christians will be led, inerrantly and inevitably, to orthodoxy as they browse the scriptural pages.”
If Sola Scriptura is not only powerless to resist heresy, but actually encourages it, then doesn’t this prove that Sola Scriptura is NOT a doctrine taught by Christ, the Apostles or the Fathers?
God Bless, Topper
E
ericc
Guest
In view of Protestants general refusal to admit to extra-biblical writings, I did not attempt to support mine with such extra-biblical writings as they tend to go past them without much impact.
But since you brought it up, it is easy to proof text any position. Just use a dragnet to scoop up all those in favor and hide those not in favor. Since I have not gone into depth those sources that you provided, I am not able to establish the proper context of which those statements were made. Notwithstanding that, you understand that the Church does not agree with ALL opinions of every Church Fathers, Latin or Greek.
General speaking without going into specifics, it would be difficult to see how one without the keys to bind and loose can do it. You claim with faith. The Arians probably believed faithfully what they thought was right. They quoted scriptures to support their stand too (the ancient version of sola scriptura). Where they failed was in Traditions. What they preached is not backed up by Traditions. Do you think they would have the ability to bind and loose something different that was taught previously? Heaven would be in chaos if everyone can bind and loose different contradicting doctrines as long as they do it with “faith”. It is difficult to give credence to a lay person’s claim to have the ability to bind and loose. How could he prove his case? Even if he can do miracles, the Church still need to gives its blessings to recognize that individual’s gift. The Church is all too aware of the power of the evil one to pass himself off as a being of light.
Perhaps you can give some examples of those that had the power to bind and loose without being given the keys to do that. Give me some names to start my research with. I am not aware of any from the Catholic side. Perhaps the Orthodox side may have encountered such a situation.
S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
This ridiculous caricature is cringeworthy, you quote one skeptic who twists what the doctrine means , and take a scholars quote out of its context , and you expect us to believe this
J
JustaServant
Guest
The bolded part I disagree with. SS is a broken system, but I hardly think it encourages heresy.
The trans-denominational fundamentalist conferences of the late 19th century were formed to fight the heresy of liberal theology. I don’t think it’s quite fair to say they encouraged it. The purpose of the conferences were to form the ‘fundamental’ doctrines of Christianity. which is, an authority. Even among independent churches you have a ‘doctrinal’ statement which the authority as to what that church believes. So there IS authority. A fence that prevents the church from falling into heresy.
Again, I agree SS is a broken system for a variety of reasons. But encouraging heresy? No, that goes too far.
- Status