'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide'

[mcq72]

Truth does not come from the bible

Reminds me of a quip from a Jesuit at Trent, " if it wasn’t for that bible…"… like we might not be in this mess…I wonder if Anthanasius, who faced a bigger doctrinal challenge, appeared as institutionally arrogant towards scripture.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Today, Protestants are very reluctant to give a definition because I immediately tell them to show it to me in Scripture.

It’s a great question to ask. I wonder - is there an example of Catholic doctrine or Tradition that’s in opposition to Scripture (according to the Catholic Church - not to what a Protestant would say)?

If you’re asking for a Catholic doctrine which opposes Scripture, there are none.

I ask this because my experience - from reading the RCC for example - is that pretty much all Catholic doctrine contained therein is (exceptionally) well footnoted with scriptural references.

I agree.

 

[mcq72]

Anabaptists or Baptists are Arminian and the majority today fall into the dispensational category of John Darby. All Protestant beliefs go back to Arminius, Luther and Calvin with Luther being the ring-leader.

And who was Huss, or Wycliffe…like the western church had measles from England to Balkan peninsula…way before Luther.

 

[TULIPed]

If you’re asking for a Catholic doctrine which opposes Scripture, there are none.

Why not? (Sincerely asked - this is where a written conversation is difficult.) Would it be possible for the Church to create a Tradition that was in opposition to Scripture? (When was the last Tradition created?)

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

If you’re asking for a Catholic doctrine which opposes Scripture, there are none.

Why not?

The Catholic Church is protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

(Sincerely asked - this is where a written conversation is difficult.) Would it be possible for the Church to create a Tradition that was in opposition to Scripture?

No.

(When was the last Tradition created?)

When Jesus Christ ascended into heaven.

 

[mcq72]

So, you’re implying that he was joking?

Such a perfunctory narrow interpretation of my post. I only gave one example of how a text has to be discerned at times beyond face value, as in joking, tongue in cheek, and you are off to the races as if that is the only literary tool to discern. Ecclesiastes is certainly not joking but needs contextual discernment…but if you insist on straw manning it with Luther joking per my view, you are on your own.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

So, you’re implying that he was joking?

Such a perfunctory narrow interpretation of my post. I only gave one example of how a text has to be discerned at times beyond face value, as in joking, tongue in cheek, and you are off to the races as if that is the only literary tool to discern. Ecclesiastes is certainly not joking but needs contextual discernment…but if you insist on straw manning it with Luther joking per my view, you are on your own.

So dramatic. Just answer the question or admit that he truly meant what he said.

See also: 'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide' - #93 by De_Maria

 

[mcq72]

So dramatic. Just answer the question or admit that he truly meant what he said.

Actually read what Jon posted quickly…did not see part about any maid…did see where he amended what he wrote at earlier date and what you post sounds very close to annullments or OT reason for divorce also…would have to reread.

 

[De_Maria]

To marry a brother or close relative in secret, sounds like the advice he gave the bigamous king. There’s nothing close to annulments in that advice.

 

[JonNC]

De_Maria:

So dramatic. Just answer the question or admit that he truly meant what he said.

Actually read what Jon posted quickly…did not see part about any maid…did see where he amended what he wrote at earlier date and what you post sounds very close to annullments or OT reason for divorce also…would have to reread.

Luther’s view on bigamy is comparable to that of the Pope at that time, as well as Erasmus, that it was far preferable to divorce. We might today find that offensive today, but it is the fact.

 

[dopeyMS]

The thousands of different Protestant beliefs ‘prove’ that truth does not come from scripture alone. It’s the most obvious truth of all that Protestants refuse to admit.

 

[dopeyMS]

People that no one cares about anymore, just footnotes in a long history of every man thinking he is smarter than Christ who only has one church.

 

[De_Maria]

mcq72:

De_Maria:

So dramatic. Just answer the question or admit that he truly meant what he said.

Actually read what Jon posted quickly…did not see part about any maid…did see where he amended what he wrote at earlier date and what you post sounds very close to annullments or OT reason for divorce also…would have to reread.

Luther’s view on bigamy is comparable to that of the Pope at that time, as well as Erasmus, that it was far preferable to divorce. We might today find that offensive today, but it is the fact.

That’s not true. Protestants allege that the Pope said that, but the quote is only found on Protestant websites and can not be found on any official documents. And, as you probably know, even if he did hold this opinion, it would have simply been his personal error and nothing that he passed on as infallible or binding on the Church.

As for Erasmus, I’ve always considered him a closet Protestant whose opinions I don’t care for. Nor, as a Catholic, am I required to hold his opinions binding in any manner.

 

[JonNC]

That’s not true. Protestants allege that the Pope said that, but the quote is only found on Protestant websites and can not be found on any official documents. And, as you probably know, even if he did hold this opinion, it would have simply been his personal error and nothing that he passed on as infallible or binding on the Church.

Yeah, it is true, and that’s not a criticism of the popes of the time, anymore than recognition that anti-judaism was common within the Church at the time, in all traditions.

As for Erasmus, I’ve always considered him a closet Protestant whose opinions I don’t care for. Nor, as a Catholic, am I required to hold his opinions binding in any manner.

I don’t particularly care for your opinions, either, but there you are.

 

[JonNC]

The thousands of different Protestant beliefs ‘prove’ that truth does not come from scripture alone. It’s the most obvious truth of all that Protestants refuse to admit.

Remarkable. It is almost as remarkable as some communions who claim that Tradition should be ignored,
I just don’t think your comment reflects Catholic teaching as I’ve heard it here for over a decade. But, believe as you wish.

 

[De_Maria]

Yeah, it is true, …

No, it’s not.

I don’t particularly care for your opinions, either, but there you are.

As long as you keep addressing me, you’ll have to deal with them. And even if you don’t. There’s no rule forbidding people from expressing their opinions on this forum.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Yeah, it is true, …

No, it’s not.

I don’t particularly care for your opinions, either, but there you are.

As long as you keep addressing me, you’ll have to deal with them. And even if you don’t. There’s no rule forbidding people from expressing their opinions on this forum.

And visa versa.
The popes of that era, Luther, and Erasmus viewed divorce as worse than bigamy because divorce is explicitly condemned.
None of them thought bigamy was a good idea, just not as bad as divorce.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

JonNC:

Yeah, it is true, …

No, it’s not.

I don’t particularly care for your opinions, either, but there you are.

As long as you keep addressing me, you’ll have to deal with them. And even if you don’t. There’s no rule forbidding people from expressing their opinions on this forum.

And visa versa.
The popes of that era, Luther, and Erasmus viewed divorce as worse than bigamy because divorce is explicitly condemned.
None of them thought bigamy was a good idea, just not as bad as divorce.

The Popes of that era knew that God made man in His image, male and female and that marriage was for life.

Romans 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

This law is in Scripture and you admitted that Luther counseled someone to ask their spouse for permission to marry another, while they were still married and still alive.

The Catholic Church has always upheld this Christian Law. Your beloved Luther disregarded it.

 

[Alex4Mary]

Actually its is a little different. Because Jesus came to us through Mary, everything we thing that we do think, say, justify is perfected through the humble hands of Mary when she gives them back to Jesus for us. As such, God ( although He could have done so without her) willed that as Jesus is our mediator to the Father, that Jesus being one in the Trinity although merciful, is honored when we place all in her hands ( Mary becomes our Mediatrix so that Jesus is honored all the more by our humilty which is the foundation of all virtues when we chose to consecrate ourselves to Jesus through Mary.

As St Louis de Montfort says, Just as Sin came through the disobedience of eve, obedience came to us through Mary ( the new eve, just as Jesus is the new adam) that God may be all the more Glorified.
So I understand what the comment meant. But it wasnt fully accurate.

 

[JonNC]

The Popes of that era knew that God made man in His image, male and female and that marriage was for life.

So did everybody involved in the Church. This is why divorce was so roundly rejected. Were that still the case today.

This law is in Scripture and you admitted that Luther counseled someone to ask their spouse for permission to marry another, while they were still married and still alive.

The Catholic Church has always upheld this Christian Law. Your beloved Luther disregarded it.

Your popes held the same basic view, that divorce was condemned in scripture, but bigamy was not.

Luther’s actual view:

Whether person may have more than one wife? I answer thus: Let unbelievers do what they please; Christian liberty, however, is regulated by love (charity), so that all that a Christian does is done to serve his fellow-man, provided only that he can render such service without jeopardy and damage to his faith and conscience. Nowadays, however, everybody is striving for a liberty that profits and pleases him, without regard for the profit and improvement which his neighbor might derive from his action. This is contrary to the teaching of St. Paul, who says: ‘All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient’ (1 Cor. 6, 12). Only see that your liberty does not become an occasion to the flesh. . . . Moreover, although the patriarchs had many wives, Christians may not follow their example, because there is no necessity for doing this, no improvement is obtained thereby, and, especially, there is no word of God to justify this practise, while great offense and trouble may come from it. Accordingly, I do not believe that Christians any longer have this liberty. God would have to publish a command that would declare such a liberty."

“Polygamy, which in former times was permitted to the Jews and Gentiles, cannot be honestly approved of among Christians, and cannot be engaged in with a good conscience, unless in an extreme case of necessity, as, for instance, when one of the spouses is separated from the other by leprosy or for a similar cause. Accordingly, you may say to the carnal people (with whom you have to do), if they want to be Christians, they must keep married fidelity and bridle their flesh, not give it license. If they want to be heathen, let them do what they please, at their own risk.”