Scripture Alone

  • Thread starter Thread starter Britta
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
II Paradox II:
I would agree that much of the protestant world is caught up in an ahistorical muddle plenty of times. The lack of context, both historical and otherwise often leads many protestants down some very odd paths. In that respect, I don’t have any argument with you. However, that being the case, I still don’t think that validates the claims of the CC to point out that problem in others.
Of course. Ultimately we are making faith claims here which defy absolute proofs. I would suggest though that the protestant experience (reformed or otherwise) does argue strongly for the necessity of a final authority in doctrinal matters.
II Paradox II:
The issue I have with the CC in particular is that while it claims a historical perspective and actually holds to it in many areas, it’s methodologies are increasingly driving it away from a true connection to history. I’ll give you a few examples:
  1. The modern fascination with Development of Doctrine has, IMO, weakened the connection between catholic doctrinal assertions and history itself. This has occured because DoD, as a method of historical interpretation, justifies the discontinuity of belief between our time and previous times by in part flattening out the historical details that would cause doubts to arise over the legitimacy of certain claims. In metaphorical terms, it is somewhat akin to finding to a string on the ground that is all tied up in knots (the messy details of history) and then grabbing both ends of the string and pulling it straight. DoD acts the person who grabs one end of the string (the earliest belief - the DNA of doctrine), then finds the other end of the string (what we believe now) and just pulls on them to make the whole thing look straight.
In essence, I’m not convinced that the philosophy of history asserted by Newman and so many here is really leading to a greater appreciation of history as it was, but a flattening of it to fit our modern dogmatic needs.
I wouldn’t necessarily disagree here. I think that many people of all faiths are too eager to look for a open and shut case when it comes to doctrinal issues. They want to have things in black and white, and tied up in a nice package. I’ll agree that many doctrines defy that desire. For instance, I don’t feel less secure that the issue of Papal primacy was less clear than we might like in the second century; nonetheless, the proponderence of evidence points in favor of it, in at least seed form even in the those early years. And certainly it had become established and accepted well before the 2nd council of Nicea. Further, I think biblical exegis of this issue certainly does come down convincingly on the Catholic side when it comes to the primacy of Peter and apostolic succession (which go hand in hand). That’s a whole other issue though. It also should be noted that any blip in a particular methodology may in our eyes appear larger than it really is from the eyes of the Church. From Newman to us, impresses us as a long time for an institution to be using a certain methedology. But the church moves in terms of Centuries. For all we know, that particular methodology may indeed be found ultimately wanting, and fall out of favor.
II Paradox II:
One further point is simply this - I don’t doubt that the magesterium relies on scholarship and broad context to establish it’s claims (it has some of the best scholars in the world). My issue is that I don’t think they are always right and I don’t think their grand claims can be lived up to.
And therein lies the crux of the issue. YOU don’t think their claims hold up, while they (and I) do? Now who shall arbitrate? Once again, this boils down to a ‘figure it out for yourself’ philosophy on an issue by issue basis. I’ll ask again, if Jesus was who we believe, does this make any sense as being the position he would have left us in?
…CONTINUED…
 
II Paradox II:
You have to remember my point - it was simply to argue that sola scriptura, as classically defined, did not mean a rejection of tradition as an authority as a whole. It did decisively reject any two-source view of authority in the church, but it didn’t reject the validity and usefulness of tradition outright.
I do see your point. However, it appears to me that this understanding is so manifestly incorrect that I am stunned that someone of your intelligence and historical knowledge can hold such a position. The two sources are so clearly established as to be near undeniable. Several issues jump out at me. The perpetual Virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, praying to the saints in heaven for starters, praying for the dead. None of which are not only NOT explicit in scriptures, but must be argued from scripture in the most roundabout and often obtuse fashion. Yet, each of these doctrines/practices were clearly established in Christendom WELL before the the 2nd Council of Nicae. Praying to the saints for instances can be seen as early as the second century in the inscriptions in the Roman Catacombs. As well as being well attested to by the pre-Nicene fathers. The same goes for the two Marian doctrines I mention, and praying for the dead. These were all held by the universal church from fairly early times. And if they aren’t in scripture per se, then they must have come from a second source.

Further, the more I think about it, Sola Scriptura even as you describe it is no different than what we have said in the beginning. You accept the tradition only as useful if it ultimately agrees with scripture. Under that paradigm, it still is scripture alone which has the final say. Or I should more correctly say, ones interpretation of scripture which has the final say. You are giving a wink and a nod to tradition, without actually giving it real authority, so that sola scriptura seems more palatable.
 
II Paradox II,

To illustrate things just a bit, there are more than just a few Reformed Theologians who deny the Nicene Creed’s claim that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. Their reason? They do not find this teaching in Sacred Scripture. They are merely taking Sola Scriptura to it’s logical end. And in my opinion, it’s logical end is heresy.

God bless,

Dave

“Lord, in my zeal for the love of truth, let me not forget the truth about love.” – St. Thomas Aquinas
 
40.png
SteveG:
And therein lies the crux of the issue. YOU don’t think their claims hold up, while they (and I) do? Now who shall arbitrate? Once again, this boils down to a ‘figure it out for yourself’ philosophy on an issue by issue basis. I’ll ask again, if Jesus was who we believe, does this make any sense as being the position he would have left us in?
That is not fair.

I have seen Catholics in these very forums argue about which doctrines are infallible and which ones aren’t. Look at your “empty throne” and “Latin mass” crowds. There are some folks here who see little wrong with voting pro-choice or birth control. Look at the debates in another thread between the Latin Catholic and the Greek Catholic over whether or not the filioque is required. One poster was bashing convert-Catholic apologists as “fourth and fifth rate minds.” I can read threads about liturgical abuses, liberal priests and bad bishops.

Even in Catholicism with it’s infallible magisterium, an individual believer has to “figure out” things for himself. Some of these debates remind me very much of watching two Protestants go at it except the Protestants are saying “the Bible says” and the Catholics are saying “the Church teaches.”

Don’t get me wrong, I’m closer to converting every day, but your description above is naieve to say the least.

-C
 
40.png
Calvin:
That is not fair.
I have seen Catholics in these very forums argue about which doctrines are infallible and which ones aren’t. Look at your “empty throne” and “Latin mass” crowds. There are some folks here who see little wrong with voting pro-choice or birth control. Look at the debates in another thread between the Latin Catholic and the Greek Catholic over whether or not the filioque is required.
The answer to all these question are actually quite clear. The only issue really involved in these debates is whether someone submits to the authority of the church or not. A difficult thing for many in a hyper-individualist, modern society to do. To say that a person taking a pro-choice (or any of the above) position because they claim teaching supports them is not entirely accurate. They will rather usually say, the church can’t tell me what to think on this issue, or that it gives them the freedom to disagree (when it doesn’t).
40.png
Calvin:
One poster was bashing convert-Catholic apologists as “fourth and fifth rate minds.” I can read threads about liturgical abuses, liberal priests and bad bishops.
I saw that thread too. What a pompous windbag that guy was. I tell you, those fourth and fifth rate minds are responsible for bring folks into the church in droves (including me), and would eat that dudes lunch in a debate on an issue of faith.
40.png
Calvin:
Even in Catholicism with it’s infallible magisterium, an individual believer has to “figure out” things for himself. Some of these debates remind me very much of watching two Protestants go at it except the Protestants are saying “the Bible says” and the Catholics are saying “the Church teaches.”
The subtle difference here is that the bible doesn’t ‘say’ anything. It only ‘says’ what one interprets it to say. While I believe it is the word of God, it is still after all a book. If you stand in front of it and ask ‘Is abortion wrong?’, the only answer you will get is the one you come up with based on the paradigm you bring to it and what verses you might find related to it. The church however is a living, breathing body that can actually answer that question for you.
40.png
Calvin:
Don’t get me wrong, I’m closer to converting every day, but your description above is naieve to say the least.
You may think it naive, but if and when you do convert, you will see that the issues that are in dispute are not REALLY in dispute. There are almost always clear, unequivecal teachings that the church has. What you will find is many people simply will not submit to the authority of the Church to speak on issues of faith and morals. To that extent, their mindset is ‘Protestant’ whether they are pro-abortion, Sedaventists, et al. And it has always been such. From the Arian Heresy, to Montanism (sp?), to Luther. Someone always thinks they know better and takes up the banner ‘I will not serve!’

I am also a convert, and know that this is at bottom the only real issue. Does the church have the authority to teach in a binding manner on faith and morals, and if so, am I willing to submit to that authority.
 
The Bible cannot say “Wait! You’ve misunderstood me.” The living magisterium can.

Catholics, like Protestants, like to engage in speculative theology. I see no problem with that. It’s how doctrine develops. However, Catholics, UNLIKE Protestants, can ask a living authority for the authentic binding judgment on the matter.

Scripture tells us …

Matt 18:15-17:
"If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one.

But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.

If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

It seems to me that Scripture is teaching us the the final authority IS THE CHURCH, not private opinion as to what the Bible says.

God bless,

Dave
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
The Bible cannot say “Wait! You’ve misunderstood me.” The living magisterium can.

Scripture tells us …

Matt 18:15-17:
"If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one.

But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.

If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

It seems to me that Scripture is teaching us the the final authority IS THE CHURCH, not private opinion as to what the Bible says.
But how often does the living Magisterium do this? There is another thread where folks are debating on how many times the Pope has spoken* ex cathedra*. If you don’t know how many times this has happened, you can’t know which doctrines are infallible and must be believed. If you don’t know that then what is the point of the whole exercise? Even now there is a thread where folks are debating whether thouse outside of the church can be saved – when will the living Magisterium step in and adjudicate that dispute?

Further, in these forums there are several threads about “bad” priests and bishops and “bad” advice received from them and “bad” homilies given by them. If priests and bishops can give bad advice, how is the living Magisterium alone enough for the faithful?

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the doctrine of the living Magisterium, could you explain it for me?

-C

P.S. I know it is only my *private *opinion 😉 but Matthew 18:15 is a question of discipline, not of doctrine. Notice the passage starts “if another member sins against you” not “if another member or believes something contrary to Holy Tradition.” If someone does something wrong to me, I am supposed to go to him first privately to attempt reconciliation. If that doesn’t work, the following steps are outlined. It does, however, imply submission to the Church decision on discipline but this passage is not about doctrine.
 
But how often does the living Magisterium do this? There is another thread where folks are debating on how many times the Pope has spoken* ex cathedra*. If you don’t know how many times this has happened, you can’t know which doctrines are infallible and must be believed.
Yes. I understand this is debated. But the Pope is not another debater. If you want to know if something is infallible or not, you send what is called a dubium (doubt) to the Holy See. They will send what is called a responsum ad dubium. When this occurs, the debate is over.

For example, several Catholic theologians had certain doubt on the definitive character of the Pope John Paul II’s May 1994 apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis which taught the inadmissibility of women to the ministerial priesthood. They questioned whether this teaching belonged to the deposit of the faith.

The following responsum ad dubium was promulgated:

CONCERNING THE TEACHING CONTAINED IN* ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS* RESPONSUM AD DUBIUM
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

October 28, 1995

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: In the affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church,** it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium** (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Rome has spoken. The debate is over. Unfortunately, disobedience continues.

God bless,

Dave
 
Of course. Ultimately we are making faith claims here which defy absolute proofs. I would suggest though that the protestant experience (reformed or otherwise) does argue strongly for the necessity of a final authority in doctrinal matters.
At a practical level, of course, this would be a preferred position for acheiving certainty and ensuring unity. The issue, however, goes beyond a philosophical argument for which system acheives maximal certainty, but which system is the one God has ordained.

Allow me to state up-front that my position is not one of advocating for the perfection of the system I am in. If anything, my approach to theology could better be described as one of mercy, whereby God is merciful to men who constantly fail to live up to His standard. As such, I’m not so much arguing for the perfect ecclesiology or soteriology of any one group, but I am aiming to know what God desires and how we might strive to get closer to that.
I wouldn’t necessarily disagree here. I think that many people of all faiths are too eager to look for a open and shut case when it comes to doctrinal issues. They want to have things in black and white, and tied up in a nice package. I’ll agree that many doctrines defy that desire.
I would argue that most things end up in this category.
For instance, I don’t feel less secure that the issue of Papal primacy was less clear than we might like in the second century; nonetheless, the proponderence of evidence points in favor of it, in at least seed form even in the those early years. And certainly it had become established and accepted well before the 2nd council of Nicea.
The history of the Papacy is not my area, so I’d be loath to comment much on it, yet even here your argument still relies on presuppositions I cannot accept. For instance, you mention the Papacy being established in “seed form” in the early church. Yet arguing for this relies on a philosophy of history that has great difficulty seeing this as the only legitimate development from the seed without presupposing the very thing it advocates. IMO - from the evidence I have seen the early church and Rome itself had competing visions of the Papacy which revolved much more around practical concerns and universal honor rather than divine right universal jurisdiction.

Using the seed analogy at this point sets the argument in your court, yet I would argue it does so without sufficient evidence. You can argue for the “preponderance of evidence” supporting the modern papacy as the sole legitimate development of the patristic seed, yet it seems to me that this argument is comparatively much weaker, especially considering the numerous challenges to the doctrine in the east and the west as well as it’s occasional disasters (such as the Avignon papacy which ended up being resolved by the power of the council, thus muddying where the true primacy and authority lay.)
Further, I think biblical exegis of this issue certainly does come down convincingly on the Catholic side when it comes to the primacy of Peter and apostolic succession (which go hand in hand). That’s a whole other issue though.
yes, that is far outside the scope here. 😃
It also should be noted that any blip in a particular methodology may in our eyes appear larger than it really is from the eyes of the Church. From Newman to us, impresses us as a long time for an institution to be using a certain methedology. But the church moves in terms of Centuries. For all we know, that particular methodology may indeed be found ultimately wanting, and fall out of favor.
While that is true, it seems to me that the church is being forced into a position such as that by virtue of her dogmatic decrees. She must assert some sort of development if she hopes to connect such things as the modern papacy to the early church that knew no such thing. Newman’s ideas became neccessary because without them the increasingly sectarian (I’m using the term in the sense of doctrines held only in the CC, not derogatively) doctrines being declared would be increasingly isolated from their supposed historical base.

How else could you assert the infallibility of the Pope as something that could fall under the scope of St. Vincent’s famous rule when it clearly was not believed in that sense?

ken
 
And therein lies the crux of the issue. YOU don’t think their claims hold up, while they (and I) do? Now who shall arbitrate? Once again, this boils down to a ‘figure it out for yourself’ philosophy on an issue by issue basis. I’ll ask again, if Jesus was who we believe, does this make any sense as being the position he would have left us in?
A few thoughts here:
  1. At the first, we must acknowledge that history has led us here. I am a product of my age and the people who built it for me, as you are. Our fathers in the faith have put us in a place where we must choose and decide things “on our own” so to speak. Even assuming we were one church, there are always issues to decide among.
  2. You ask the question - is the the position Jesus would have left us in, to which I answer, “yes!”. For He has left us (or we created it) in such a condition. Unless you argue for the perpicuity of papal claims in scripture and history, I don’t see how you could argue otherwise. Tell me, how would you know which Pope was legitimate in the Great Western Schism? How would you know arianism was wrong when it was Athanasius Contra Mundum? How would you decide between the west and the east in 1054 (who had committed the damning offense of schism)?
However, where we part company is the import which we attach to this fact. As I intimated earlier, my view is such that God in His mercy will still acheive his saving will in men despite our failures and confusion. As the scriptures say, Christ sheep will hear His voice and they will follow, and God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy whether they are far or near.
  1. Even though I can’t remember the cite at the moment, the great Thomas Aquinas stated that to plead that one was merely “following authority” is insufficient to ameliorate guilt when judged by God. Without assuming the truth of his dictum itself (and ironically falling under it’s condemnation), it seems that this illustrates part of the difficulty we are presented with. There are plenty of people and things claiming authority, some of whom seem to contradict each other. When that situation is present, one must do their best to try to put the pieces together and serve the Lord in his best capacity.
  2. Ultimately for me it came down to an issue of sufficient evidence and the work of the Spirit. When I became a believer (from agnosticism) the HS worked in me to trust His Word and his actions in me. Of course, this confidence might be chalked up to presumption on my part, especially seeing as I trust a revelation I cannot show to be perfect, but only a shadow of it’s perfect archetype. However, God impelled me to believe it and Him and trust in the “preponderance of evidence”. You make a similar argument for the church, but ultimately I am not convinced as to the evidence nor am I compelled by the Spirit to believe it.
ken
 
Further, in these forums there are several threads about “bad” priests and bishops and “bad” advice received from them and “bad” homilies given by them. If priests and bishops can give bad advice, how is the living Magisterium alone enough for the faithful?
The Magisterium *alone *is far from being enough for the faithful. Catholics assert grace alone through faith, love, and hope.

The difference is that Scripture, Tradition, and Church are not to be separated or falsely set contrary to one another. Protestantism, in my view, has done just that. Whereas Catholicism continues to maintain, much as was the constant faith of the early Church Fathers, that Scripture, Tradition, and Church, all three, are sacred.

The Church has and may indeed continue to stumble, as it is comprised of sinners in a daily battle against their sinfulness. However, no matter how much the Church may stumble, Christ is holding her hand such that she will never spill the cup of Revelation. This was the Catholic faith of the early Fathers. This ought to be our Catholic faith today.

God bless,

Dave
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Rome has spoken. The debate is over. Unfortunately, disobedience continues.

God bless,

Dave
Very interesting.

I had seen those decrees before, but I wasn’t sure where they fit into the whole Magisterium picture. (The Catholic Church and those who claim to speak for Her, afterall, produce a lot of paperwork!) So can anyone request a *responsum ad dubium? *Is there a collection of them somehwere (a Vatican FAQ?!)? Am I correct in assuming they have the force of the Pope behind them? Are they considered infallible (I thought the Pope couldn’t delegate infallibility)?

Thanks,
-C
 
I know it is only my *private *opinion 😉 but Matthew 18:15 is a question of discipline, not of doctrine. Notice the passage starts “if another member sins against you”
Heresy (false doctrine) is just as surely a sin against me as any other sin. In fact, heresy is a sin against the entire Church. Matt 18 applies to all sin, even heresy and schism.

God bless,

Dave
 
I do see your point. However, it appears to me that this understanding is so manifestly incorrect that I am stunned that someone of your intelligence and historical knowledge can hold such a position. The two sources are so clearly established as to be near undeniable.
well, I do feel in good company as many of far greater capacity than me have argued for the late arrival of the two-source theory of scripture and tradition in favor of a one-source view being the key to understanding the patristic and early medieval periods. Among them would be Oberman (I had an extended quote from him earlier in this thread, you may want to look for it.), A.N.S. Lane and Yves Congar (I think, though I could be wrong here… I have yet to read his work on Tradition and Traditions).
Several issues jump out at me. The perpetual Virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, praying to the saints in heaven for starters, praying for the dead. None of which are not only NOT explicit in scriptures, but must be argued from scripture in the most roundabout and often obtuse fashion.
  1. For one - you have to realize the one-source theory applies to the dogmatic and doctrinal beliefs of the church, not her practices or pious speculations.
  2. The one-source theory as held by most does not require explicit recognition, only implicit. This is in turn made even more fuzzy depending on which method of interpretation one holds to. If allegory, held by Origen and Clememtn, one is virtually free to see it anywhere. If literal sense, as in Chrysostom and Basil one is forced to get implicit or logically derived doctrines from a handful of verses.
  3. Many people have argued for these things from scripture, more or less successfully. If you acknowledge the weakness of these attempts, as I do, it is no mystery why you advocate a two-source theory.
  4. I would argue that the two-source view actually developed much later as the dominant view among theologians and the fathers (as Oberman argues).
Further, the more I think about it, Sola Scriptura even as you describe it is no different than what we have said in the beginning. You accept the tradition only as useful if it ultimately agrees with scripture. Under that paradigm, it still is scripture alone which has the final say.
well, yes. Ultimately we declare quite explicitly that scripture is our final authority, not tradition. Tradition is a support and an aid, it is not the final word.
Or I should more correctly say, ones interpretation of scripture which has the final say.
As Calvin has pointed out, this statement is rather unfair and I assert to be self-referentially fallacious. Everything that comes in through our sense must be interpreted and thus we have no access to the thing-in-itself in all of it’s objective glory. One could just as easily say you possess not the teachings of the church, but your interpretation of them. Even when they clarify, you possess nothing more than your interpretation of their clarification.

Ultimately, I suspect if you advance this arguement our fundamental philosophy of langauage and meaning will be shown to be so different as to make discussion at this point rather useless. Sure, we must interpret scripture, but this is not so murky that one cannot have a hope of understanding or critqueing their understanding that their only hope is one with a direct pipepline to authorital intent and meaning. If so, why have any confidence in words at all?
You are giving a wink and a nod to tradition, without actually giving it real authority, so that sola scriptura seems more palatable
Well, I would argue you have done the same thing by advocating doctrines and methodologies that force you into a similar position. Ultimately your position must assume that “real” authority must be infallible and incontrovertible, a view I cannot endorse.

ken
 
Calvin,
So can anyone request a responsum ad dubium?
Sure. But that doesn’t mean you’ll get an answer.
By reason of the knowledge, competence, or pre-eminence which they have, the laity are empowered—indeed sometimes obliged—to manifest their opinion on those things which pertain to the good of the Church. If the occasion should arise, **this should be done through the institutions established by the Church for that purpose, and always with truth, courage, and prudence, and with reverence and charity toward those who, by reason of their office, represent the person of Christ. **(Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 37)
We ought to inquire “through the institutions” of the Church. It wouldn’t be imprudent for me to BEGIN with a letter to the Pope. (I’m in the military … we call this jumping the chain of command … it’s just not polite).

Instead, I recommend this protocol …
cuf.org/protocol.htm
Is there a collection of them somehwere (a Vatican FAQ?!)?
If you are asking if there is a compendium of Catholic teaching somewhere. The answer is yes. It’s the Catechism of the Catholic Church. scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

However, if you are asking if there is an infallible list of ONLY the infallible dogmas of Catholicism, the answer is no. The reason being, Catholics are bound to the teachings of the Magisterium, whether they are infallibly defined or not.

I ought to presume that my pastor is teaching in good faith, having much more theological training than I have, having been ordained by Holy Orders. I ought to believe his teaching, whether he’s infallible or not (and he is not). There will be times when he goofs up (unintentionally) or is even willfully teaches something that, to me, seems doubful. In those cases, I recommend the protocol I provided above to inquire respectfully into the orthodoxy of what is being taught.

Catholicism is not a self-study correspondence religion. The Ethiopian Eunuch, for example, attempted to understand Scripture on his own and failed. When asked by St. Philip if he understood what he was reading, he stated, “How can I, without anybody to teach me?” It is best to have two-way communication in attempting to understand the Catholic faith. Faith comes from what you hear, (not solely by what your read).

If you are interested in a fairly trustworthy (not infallible) source on Catholic dogma, I recommend Dr. Ludwig Ott’s *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. *In it, he discusses the various levels of Catholic dogma, to include de fide (infallible) dogmas. It is useful in attempting to understand why some doctrines we believe with certainty, even if less than infallibly defined certainty.
Am I correct in assuming they have the force of the Pope behind them?
Yes. If it was promulgated by the Pope, it is published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, giving it the force of Ecclesiastical Law, which is binding upon on Catholics.
Are they considered infallible (I thought the Pope couldn’t delegate infallibility)?
Good question. However, approval of a letter, decree, judgement, etc. is not the same as delegation of infallible authority. For a Catholic, they are definitive, whether they are infallible or not.

Heb. 13:17 "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with sighing—for that would be harmful to you."

God bless,

Dave
 
I’m curious to those who adhere to Scripture Alone as their sole authority. If Scripture is all that is needed, how and where does scripture support this?

Thanks.
Britta
John the baptist in Luke:3:4 says: As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

In Luke:4:4: Jesus defeated Satan by saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

As Jesus was completing His mission, his words are summed up here:
Matt 24:35: Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away
Mark 13:31: Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Luke 21:33: Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Rev 14:6: And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top