L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Maybe so. But truth should never be comprised.
- Status
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
We likely have different understanding of this. The “invisible church” would consist of the church suffering in purgatory and the church triumphant in Heaven. We, the visible are the church militant. But all one mystical body in the communion of saints.
S
Son_of_Niall
Guest
Would you like it if a former Catholic came here and said when he was younger he ‘served time’ at Catholic Mass? Would you think that was funny?
Some here really need to grow up.
S
Son_of_Niall
Guest
J
JustaServant
Guest
I don’t disagree Topper, I’m simply trying to get you to stretch a little beyond the “Sola Scriptura is inherently bad” approach you are taking.
As a former Baptist, what I saw was not that it led to heresy or unbelief so much. But it is actually too RESTRICTIVE and too NARROW.
For example, recently a Facebook friend made a post about the word ‘Lent’ is found nowhere in the Bible. I answered by simply explaining the purpose of Lent with various Bible verses that show there is nothing wrong with it.
The common denominator to many is ‘that’s not in the Bible’. To me, that’s rather restrictive.
On the other hand, SS is not inherently bad because there are far worse things. At least they are pledging allegiance to God’s Word, a book put together by the Catholic Church.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
I appreciate good humor even at my own expense. Probably because I don’t take myself too seriously.
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Stick with the topic please.
S
Son_of_Niall
Guest
You’re not seriously connecting SS with abortion, are you?
S
Son_of_Niall
Guest
Extremely simplistic view of historical and world events. The same could be, and has been, said of Catholic countries.
E
ericc
Guest
Have you identified which of the one liners are out of context? You haven’t. Long essays in itself don’t prove anything. One line of truth can be worth many thousands of words. Your fallacy is in assuming that one-liners are not true and not in context.
You missed the point. Text proofing whether one liners or multiple paragraphs by themselves could be biased. I am only emphasizing that point by showing an example of text proofing. So I used one liners. So what? The point is the same. You don’t seem to understand the point I was trying to make either. I could have made the same point by quoting long essays but at the end of it still biased.
Which one of those one-liners is out of context? Everyone of those one-liners demonstrated the intent of the person, that is, to highlight that Peter was the owner of the keys. If you can’t prove that wasn’t the message of the persons quoted, then you are just making a lot of noise. Those statements were concise and reflect the intent.
As above.
Then if Peter got his keys, whose keys are those fathers you quoted holding? I am saying the apostles do have powers but they don’t have Peter’s keys to shut and open.
I don’t see any keys given to the other apostles. Verse and chapter please. Please don’t assume keys and powers are the same.
Chapter and verse
And the merit of your arguments are lacking.
All you are doing is repeating the same statement. And I will continue to use the same rebuttal: the keys were given to Peter only. No others have them. You have not succeeded in proving that keys were given to others. Claims but no proof. I am happy to concede if you can just show the evidence.
I’ll KIV this.
And my assumption remains valid because you haven’t proven your case that identical keys were given to others other than Peter. That those so-call “keys” contain the same powers of Peter to open/shut.
Peter and his successors by virtue of their keys can open and close. There is only one Peter(Pope) at any time that possess the keys. Why is that a problem? Non-Peters can not do that. And that is the gist of our argument isn’t it? Can those other keys claimed to be held by others i.e.non-Peters open/close what Peter has done? If the answer is no, they are not holding to the same set of keys.
You can argue any angle you want but if you can not answer this simple question, quoting more writings not going to help your case. You only have 2 points to provide evidence:
- keys were given to others
- keys were identical to that of Peter’s to open/close i.e. same keys, same powers, same everything.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Just,
Thanks for your response.
In 1532-3 Thomas More (executed as a Catholic in England in 1535) wrote “The Confutation of Tyndale’s Answer”. In this book, he describes the doctrinal confusion that had already overtaken Protestantism in only 15 years after its inception:
“But now these heretics be almost as many sects as men, and never one agreeth with another, so that if the world were to learn the right way of them, that matter were much like as if a man walking in a wilderness that fain would find the right way toward the town that he intended, should meet with a crowd of lewd, mocking knaves, which when the poor man had prayed them to tell him the way, would get them into a roundel [circle] turning them back to back, and then speak all at once, and each of them tell him, ‘this way,’ each of them pointing forth his hand the way that his face standeth.’ (In Marius, pg. 271)
Why was this perfectly clear to people like Eck and More and dozens of others, and not to the Reformers? What was it that would not allow them to see that the Protestant reliance on Scripture Alone, in any form, was going to lead to doctrinal confusion and dissension? Eck actually predicted the confusion BEFORE it happened. And yet, somehow, those who employed Sola Scriptura couldn’t see what it had caused even AFTER the results were in. Is the concept THAT seductive?
God Bless You Just, Topper
Thanks for your response.
While they are pledging themselves to God’s Word, they have renounced the very thing which will allow them to fully understand it - Christ’s Church. Without the guidance of that Church, false interpretations will rule the day and none will be immune.
In 1532-3 Thomas More (executed as a Catholic in England in 1535) wrote “The Confutation of Tyndale’s Answer”. In this book, he describes the doctrinal confusion that had already overtaken Protestantism in only 15 years after its inception:
“But now these heretics be almost as many sects as men, and never one agreeth with another, so that if the world were to learn the right way of them, that matter were much like as if a man walking in a wilderness that fain would find the right way toward the town that he intended, should meet with a crowd of lewd, mocking knaves, which when the poor man had prayed them to tell him the way, would get them into a roundel [circle] turning them back to back, and then speak all at once, and each of them tell him, ‘this way,’ each of them pointing forth his hand the way that his face standeth.’ (In Marius, pg. 271)
Why was this perfectly clear to people like Eck and More and dozens of others, and not to the Reformers? What was it that would not allow them to see that the Protestant reliance on Scripture Alone, in any form, was going to lead to doctrinal confusion and dissension? Eck actually predicted the confusion BEFORE it happened. And yet, somehow, those who employed Sola Scriptura couldn’t see what it had caused even AFTER the results were in. Is the concept THAT seductive?
God Bless You Just, Topper
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Jon-
You posted two lengthy pieces to me to which I would like to respond. I don’t want us to make the mistake of talking past one another, so let me ask:
Are there Catholic doctrines which you reject because you find no support for them within the pages of Scripture? (Obviously, the answer is yes; otherwise, you would be a Catholic.) Are there Catholic doctrines which developed so late that, in your estimation, they could not possibly be called Apostolic in origin? To make this more concrete, would you name one or two of these for the lurkers following this thread?
Now from my perspective, it appears that despite the support for those doctrines found in both Sacred Tradition and in the guidance of the Magisterium of the Church, you still reject them, don’t you?
If so, why? Wouldn’t it be because the authority of the Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church are insufficient to overcome the reservations you have about those doctrines resulting from your own private judgment of scripture or that of the early Lutherans whose traditions which you follow?
J
JustaServant
Guest
Topper, I’m not sure how this addresses the post I made. I am not speaking historically. I am speaking of the here and now.
Let me simplify it.
Protestants have a Catholic book: the Bible.
Despite the rejection of authoritative interpretation, it remains a Catholic book with the seed of Catholic authoritative teaching in it. Once the boundaries were established prior to SS, even the most fundamentalist of Christians are still following Catholic teaching.
Obviously the weakness of SS cannot insure that following, it is nonetheless there.
I came back to the Catholic Church BY READING the Bible. What I thought was my own interpretation was in fact God leading me back to His Church.
J
JustaServant
Guest
I would agree, we need to post with charity and respect.
Yes to both, but understand this: many of them I do not reject as teachings. I reject the idea of making them doctrine when, 1) they may have no scriptural support, or better, scripture is silent on them (invocation of the Saints in Heaven, as an example). 2) I am less likely to accept doctrines that are disputed east and west (Papa supremacy, as an example). Of these two examples, I am far more likely to receive a doctrine on invocation because it is agreed upon east and east.
Answered above.
It isn’t a matter of my personal judgement, but looking over the situation in the Church Catholic. For example, above, if the EO and RC were to come to convergence on the nature of the pope’s primacy, I would accept that.
Now, understand, you asked my view, which may or may not reflect the views of other Lutherans. And I consider this approach as in keeping with the practice of sola scriptura.
Jon
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Okay. You answered as I expected you would, and that’s a good thing since it may imply that we are on the same page.
So, here are my next thoughts. How do people come to know orthodox Christian doctrine?
It seems to me there are really only three ways:
- They read the Bible and discover the doctrine stated therein.
- They are taught the doctrine by another believer (iow, the Church).
- They receive divine revelation from God Himself.
Now, #1 requires that someone interpret the scriptures correctly because a false interpretation of scripture cannot lead to a correct formulation of doctrine.
And #2 requires that someone TEACH doctrine correctly because a false teaching cannot lead anyone to a correct understanding of doctrine.
So, when a person is coming to know God and orthodox Christian doctrine, I don’t see that it is possible for them to know with certainty that their understanding of that doctrine is correct apart from a living authority against which their beliefs may be measured. IOW, they have to go to the Church to ask, “Is this correct?”
Even Paul did this. In Galatians 2:1-2, Paul writes:
Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.
Paul obviously had the Sacred Scriptures of his day, and we do not dispute that he was led by the Holy Spirit learning many things from God. Yet, he checked his message against the proto-Magisterium of the Church - the apostles in Jerusalem. Call me sentimental, but I like to think that Paul learned quite a bit about the life of Jesus from those who had lived with Him for three years.
But beyond this, we see in the Acts of the Apostles examples of doctrines being developed by means of fresh interpretation of the Scriptures (in the case of the election of Matthias which is one of the passages used to illustrate Apostolic Succession) and in the baptism of the Gentiles beginning with the house of Cornelius. Moreover, the Council of Jerusalem actually set aside the clear teaching of Sacred Scripture when the Church ruled that Gentiles did not need to undergo circumcision. You can search the scriptures from Genesis to Micah and not find anything abrogating circumcision.
So, how did scripture alone provide a norm for such a doctrine?
Scripture alone didn’t provide it. The very Apostles were there. It would be foolish to contend otherwise. Scripture provides us with the testimony of what they did. It doesn’t replace what they did, or make what they did unnecessary. OTOH, the question implies a belief which, as I’ve said before, I don’t hold, a belief that when we practice sola scriptura that it denies the teaching authority of the Church. In fact, sola scriptura is a practice of the Church, not an individual.Okay. You answered as I expected you would, and that’s a good thing since it may imply that we are on the same page.
So, here are my next thoughts. How do people come to know orthodox Christian doctrine?
It seems to me there are really only three ways:
#3 is not meant to imply that God is not active in the enlightenment of the mind in the course of nos. 1 & 2; I’m merely saying that God might speak to someone independently of those things.
- They read the Bible and discover the doctrine stated therein.
- They are taught the doctrine by another believer.
- They receive divine revelation from God Himself.
Now, #1 requires that someone interpret the scriptures correctly because a false interpretation of scripture cannot lead to a correct formulation of doctrine.
And #2 requires that someone TEACH doctrine correctly because a false teaching cannot lead anyone to a correct understanding of doctrine.
So, when a person is coming to know God and orthodox Christian doctrine, I don’t see that it is possible for them to know with certainty that their understanding of that doctrine is correct apart from a living authority against which their beliefs may be measured. IOW, they have to go to the Church to ask, “Is this correct?”
Even Paul did this. In Galatians 2:1-2, Paul writes:
Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.
Paul obviously had the Sacred Scriptures of his day, and we do not dispute that he was led by the Holy Spirit learning many things from God. Yet, he checked his message against the proto-Magisterium of the Church - the apostles in Jerusalem.
And further, we see in the Acts of the Apostles examples of doctrines being developed by means of fresh interpretation of the Scriptures (in the case of the election of Matthias which gave us Apostolic Succession) and in the baptism of the Gentiles beginning with the house of Cornelius. The Council of Jerusalem actually set aside the clear teaching of Sacred Scripture when the Church ruled that Gentiles did not need to undergo circumcision. How did scripture alone provide a norm for such a doctrine?
** “Anyone who is to find Christ must first find the Church. How could anyone know where Christ is and what faith is in him unless he knew where his believers are?” ** - Martin Luther
Jon
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I may have been editing my post while you were writing yours.
Check that…it may not make any difference.
So, if scripture alone could not provide a norm for abrogating circumcision, then sola scriptura cannot be a universal, “always and everywhere” doctrine.
Doesn’t that lead to the contradictory position of having to say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for the believer - except when it isn’t?
And if it is not true always and everywhere, why do you believe it at all?
I never said it was an always and everywhere doctrine. Again, you are asking me to defend an understanding of sola scriptura that is not mine.I may have been editing my post while you were writing yours.
Check that…it may not make any difference.
So, if scripture alone could not provide a norm for abrogating circumcision, then sola scriptura cannot be a universal, “always and everywhere” doctrine.
And if it is not true always and everywhere, why do you believe it at all?
Doesn’t that lead to the contradictory position of having to say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for the believer - except when it isn’t?
If the Apostles themselves were here on Earth today, I would simply go up to them and ask. They are not. If the Church had not gone through a Great Schism, we could rely on a council of the whole Church to inform our faith. Currently, that is not the case.
Further, you yourself have said that no Church teaching contradicts scripture, and the CC teaches that the Church serves scripture, not the other way around.
As that is the case, we rely on scripture, not as the sole norm, but as the sole final norm.
With division and Schism the state of Christ’s one Holy Church, scripture gives us the most trustworthy evidence what what the Gospel is.
Jon
W
Wannano
Guest
I agree Jon,
Thanks
- Status