Sola scriptura and corrections?

[JonNC]

The Church survived many crises over the millennia. The breaking point in the West was when Luther was excommunicated in 1521, after writing vicious polemics against the Church and inciting the German princes to rise up against the Church; and then proceeded to build his movement in opposition to the Church.

He didn’t write polemics in a vacuum. Luther didn’t happen in a vacuum. Some here will say he should have recanted, he should have submitted. That lets Rome off the hook for a betrayal of its authority and leadership. There were polemics written about Luther, too. There were reformers who were executed. There were overtly corrupt practices in Central Europe. There were reforms the Church actually accepted.
Point: both sides were at fault. If we spend time now blaming the other side, that undermines any actions toward unity.

Granted that both sides were to blame for the Protestant revolt; but how can you say that Rome is responsible for division in God’s Church?

If both sides were to blame, how is Rome not responsible? Both sides were responsible. We Are responsible if we point fingers of blame at the other 500 years later.

Scripture and Tradition is indissolubly intertwined and mutually supportive. Neither can exist without the other or contradict the other. The Magisterium serves the Word of God by faithfully studying the Word and declares as needed. You raised a straw man.

As for the early Church and the councils; none of which taught Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura or denied/attacked papal authority.

What is denied is what the reformers viewed as later innovations, not particularly the early Church. It was their view that, if Tradition and scripture teach the same truths, then new teachings must be evaluated against scripture.
The single most divisive one is universal justification, which exists neither in the early Church or scripture. Objections to that claim predate the Reformation by 500 years.

The development of Catholic doctrine, from either explicit statements in Scripture or from kernel form and in Tradition; has been mainly in defense of Holy Mother Church against heresies and was carefully worked out over centuries.

Universal jurisdiction is not a defense of the Church. Infallibility ex cathedra is not a defense of the Church. These are changes from primacy of the Bishop of Rome to supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, not found in scripture or the early Church.

 

[JonNC]

Those 220 Catholic parishes,

Nope. 220 individual Catholic Churches. That’s the same principle you want to use.
It is faulty in both usages, but if you use it, you’re stuck with it.

 

[JonNC]

The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, the Catholic Church is truly ONE . We (Catholics) are ALL in complete union with the successor to Peter, the pope of the Church of Rome, Peter’s last see.

And there, @Agathon77, is an example of the triumphalism that extends the divisions of the Church.
They come from this side of the Tiber also.

 

[BohemianBrother]

Yes, I do agree many things can be argued for based on Scripture. That is why we need tradition and teaching authority to clarify Scripture. However, there is also a constant “evolution” of tradition. Scripture contains the oldest reliable apostolic tradition we know, therefore it is the final norm for determining what is and isn’t Sacred Tradition. If any two teachings are in clear opposition, Sacred Scripture is correct. Neither a council nor a Pope can explicitly overrule scripture (like saying Mary is actually a goddess or something, or that there were actually 14 apostles). This all should be fine for a Catholic to accept.

Afaik, from what I have discussed with few catholics, Sola Scriptura in the Lutheran view should be acceptable if clarified, that only the Magisterium still has the authority of interpretation.

Of course I am not an expert on Lutheran theology, but this is what I gathered when I wanted to form an opinion about Lutheran SS in relation to Catholicism.

 

[TULIPed]

We (Catholics) are ALL in complete union with the successor to Peter, the pope of the Church of Rome, Peter’s last see.

Steve - I love your zeal brother, but it’s statements like this that impinge on your credibility. Some of the most important Catholic politicians in the United States publicly support abortion. In many ways on this topic alone, the evangelical Christian movement in the US is more unified with Rome than professing Catholic politicians. And they go to Mass and are permitted to take part in the Eucharist. Complete unity??? C’mon man.

Jesus asks us to do many things in unity - to love each other as ourselves, to give sacrificially, to feed His sheep. In many ways, all Christians do this in unity, no?

 

[Agathon77]

@JonNC,

What your saying is a old song of your reformers: They didn’t innovate; they “ restored “ the pristine Apostolic Faith from the “ corruptions “of the medieval Church.

Granted, they were problems in discipline and practice of the true Faith that Holy Mother Church taught faithfully for 1,500 years. The problem is: You don’t throw out the baby with the bath water just before fallible men failed to live up to the True Faith taught by the Church.

Yes, Tetzel was wrong to sell indulgences. What he did violated what the contemporary Church taught. Yes, they were corrupt bishops and priests. But, that doesn’t invalidate the whole system of the authentic Apostolic Faith handed down to us.

I place the burden of proof on you, Jon; to prove your reformers didn’t innovate and we did.

What your reformers innovated:

Sola Fide
Sola Scriptura
Denial of papal authority itself and the power to absolve sins
Throwing out the Church structure of the episcopate and priesthood and denying episcopal authority.
Replacing authority to interpret from the Magisterium to the individual.
Placing the Church and spiritual power into the hands of the state.

Draw up your defense please and try to prove that what your reformers did, which authentic reformers stay within the system they are reforming: Not leaving or getting kicked out and creating a new church wholecloth from scratch. While claiming they are faithful Catholics and the true Church.

 

[po18guy]

And the elephant in the reform living room: the absolute and final denial that the mass is a sacrifice. This, despite the fact that our Lord used sacrificial language in the upper room at the institution of the Holy Eucharist, and commanded the Apostles to “Do this…”

The “Blood of the Covenant” in the OT was a sacrifice. If we compartmentalize Christ into a 2,000 year old box and move on, we lose our anchor and doctrine drifts. There is not a single mainline protestant denomination that acts or believes as the reformers did.

Doctrinal drift.

Some will disagree. They are simply, obstinately wrong.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Those 220 Catholic parishes,

Nope. 220 individual Catholic Churches. That’s the same principle you want to use.
It is faulty in both usages, but if you use it, you’re stuck with it.

Nope

Ya got that wrong. Protestants, to pick one non Catholic group, are the one(s) massively divided.

We, OTOH, ALL who are Catholic, are perfectly united to the pope of Rome, successor to Peter. Just as Jesus required. HERE

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, the Catholic Church is truly ONE . We (Catholics) are ALL in complete union with the successor to Peter, the pope of the Church of Rome, Peter’s last see.

And there, @Agathon77, is an example of the triumphalism that extends the divisions of the Church.
They come from this side of the Tiber also.

Jon,

Would you charge Paul with triumphalism when he taught the following to Bp Titus

Titus 3:10-11
10 As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

that English word factious, comes from αἱρετικὸν Heretic in Greek.

Now,

Paul is talking to a Catholic bishop there. Protestantism, a bunch of heresies, won’t be seen for 1400+ yrs from Paul’s letter here.

 

[JonNC]

What your saying is a old song of your reformers: They didn’t innovate; they “ restored “ the pristine Apostolic Faith from the “ corruptions “of the medieval Church.

In some ways, true. Some Catholics here have offered the notion that the Reformers through out 1500 years of the Church, which is a canard from the Lutheran perspective. From a Lutheran view, nonsense such as the Great Apostasy or Trail of Blood are canards, too.

Granted, they were problems in discipline and practice of the true Faith that Holy Mother Church taught faithfully for 1,500 years. The problem is: You don’t throw out the baby with the bath water just before fallible men failed to live up to the True Faith taught by the Church.

I agree. Lutherans maintain apostolic teaching, word and sacrament, the necessity of a visible Church, the Creeds and ecumenical councils. That’s the baby: OHCAC.

Yes, Tetzel was wrong to sell indulgences. What he did violated what the contemporary Church taught…

Forget Tetzel. He’s just a symptom of what was the problem. Forget the 95 Theses.
No good Lutheran wants to invalidate the Apostolic faith. Lutheranism views it as a continuation of that faith from the apostles.

Sola Fide
Sola Scriptura
Denial of papal authority itself and the power to absolve sins

Sola fide - without derailing the thread, this from a Pope Benedict;

Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: " faith alone " is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).

I see Pope Benedict’s words here a direct response to Luther’s commentary of Galatians 5:6

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

Look for unity, not division.

I’ve already discussed the other two.

continued

 

[JonNC]

Throwing out the Church structure of the episcopate and priesthood and denying episcopal authority.
Replacing authority to interpret from the Magisterium to the individual.

Check the Augsburg Confession and the Apology and you will see your understanding is incorrect.

Replacing authority to interpret from the Magisterium to the individual.

Completely false.

Placing the Church and spiritual power into the hands of the state.

As opposed to the Church being the state?

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

Would you charge Paul with triumphalism when he taught the following to Bp Titus

Titus 3:10-11
10 As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

I would agree with Paul, if I thought the other person fractious or full of sin. I do not look at dialogue with other Christians that way. I
Look at dialogue with other Christians as responding to the call that we all be one.

I think it possible that Paul would be talking about those who consistently try to divide instead of seeking unity.

Paul is talking to a Catholic bishop there. Protestantism, a bunch of heresies, won’t be seen for 1400+ yrs from Paul’s letter here.

This is the kind of fractious talk Paul might have meant. How do you see it as helpful in ending division? If I was using terms like “papists” or other slurs or derogatory terms, how would that help?

We, OTOH, ALL who are Catholic , are perfectly united to the pope of Rome, successor to Peter. Just as Jesus required.

Oh, Steve, I’ve been here for over a decade. Please do not expect me to accept the “perfectly united” story. It just isn’t true.

On the other hand, since we are looking at scripture:
Mark 9

John answered him, saying: Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, who followeth not us: and we forbade him. 39{38} But Jesus said: Do not forbid him. For there is no man that doth a miracle in my name and can soon speak ill of me. 40{39} For he that is not against you is for you. 41{40} For whosoever shall give you to drink a cup of water in my name, because you belong to Christ: amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Jon,

Would you charge Paul with triumphalism when he taught the following to Bp Titus

Titus 3:10-11
10 As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

I would agree with Paul, if I thought the other person fractious or full of sin. I do not look at dialogue with other Christians that way. I
Look at dialogue with other Christians as responding to the call that we all be one.

Who is Paul talking to Bp Titus about? THEY are already IN THE CHURCH …True?

AND

1. THEY are αἱρετικὸν
2. Does Paul give Titus, ergo those who cause trouble unlimited attempts to turn them around? Nope!
3. Does Paul say to Titus, don’t give the tough message you might be accused of triumphalism? Nope!
4. Does Paul say to Titus, don’t ever give up on those folks? Nope!

According to the stats, you and I have talked 210 times. What’s THAT say?

JonNC:

I think it possible that Paul would be talking about those who consistently try to divide instead of seeking unity.

to your point, one could then ask, Using the passage from Titus

how could one, who for example, fits Paul’s description of a heretic,

AND

Paul says after Titus tries 2 times to turn such a person around, but they don’t turn around,

"have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned".

If THAT isn’t followed, what then should be followed?

Paul is talking to a Catholic bishop there. Protestantism, a bunch of heresies, won’t be seen for 1400+ yrs from Paul’s letter here.

JonNC:

This is the kind of fractious talk Paul might have meant.

Let’s face it

Paul isn’t talking to, or writing to, … pagans. Paul writes to people “IN THE CHURCH”. The fractiousness is coming from individuals in the Church and causing αἱρετικὸν .

JonNC:

is trying to get THEM to unite?

Yet, ,

How many times does Paul give them to correct their error(s)

 

[JonNC]

Paul says after Titus tries 2 times to turn such a person around, but they don’t turn around,

"have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned".

If THAT isn’t followed, what then should be followed?

Then why are you talking to me?
Do you approve of the ongoing efforts within the Catholic Church of ecumenism? Are you opposed to the effort directed at Lutherans in that regard?
If so, are you being fractious, or is the Vatican?

 

[steve-b]

Paul says after Titus tries 2 times to turn such a person around, but they don’t turn around,

"have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned".

If THAT isn’t followed, what then should be followed?

JonNC:

Then why are you talking to me?

GOOD Question!

I guess I’m not as busy as Paul was

JonNC:

Do you approve of the ongoing efforts within the Catholic Church of ecumenism? Are you opposed to the effort directed at Lutherans in that regard?
If so, are you being fractious, or is the Vatican?

Ecumenical speak included,
What does all the efforts the Church puts into these endeavors show?

In every era of time, we live in a very short window of it.

Every minute of every day, it’s the end of the world for a huge number of people. Their chance to change has ended. Judgement occurs, Eternity begins.

All I can say,

Once a person comes to the knowledge of the truth

AND

Won’t follow it

THEN That’s on THEM.

As for me,

I’m Catholic and I can prove without a doubt, THAT is the only Church Jesus established. So when the end comes

I want to be in the right place when that moment comes for me

 

[JonNC]

GOOD Question!

I guess I’m not as busy as Paul was

I’m guessing that, despite your apologia, you truly believe that unity comes from dialogue. I also have a long admiration for your faith, and think you’re a good man.

 

[Agathon77]

Right now, I’m listening to my Lateralus album as I’m composing my reply.

On your Sola Fide point:

First off, it’s flattering how you guys justify your doctrines by our doctrines.

The Holy Father Emeritus was speaking of faith completed in works. Which is what Saint Paul taught and is in accord with Saint James. That has been Church teaching from the beginning.

Luther’s commentary on Gal 5:6 at first sounds a lot like ours. Faith completed in works of love. Then Lither goes on to say that faith without works isn’t justifying faith and only faith completed in works justifies.

Alright, he agrees with us so far.

Then we find the typical problem in Luther’s eisegesis: He read his Sola Fide in circumcision/uncircumcision as somehow that meant works.

Saint Paul taught that as inclusion in the Mosaic Covenant; not the New Covenant of Christ.

Now, the real problem of Luther’s Sola Fide is a fundamental misread of Romans. In it, Luther misread Romans 3:28, that somehow faith apart from works of the law means faith alone from works. That fit his scrupulous and tortured psyche that saw his out and spun it out into bad theology that divorces justification from sanctification. Neatly saving him from being tortured by his sins and his failures to overcome them in conversion of the heart, taught by Saint Paul in Romans; and to grow in holiness.

I can summarize his error in this phrase:

“ Faith alone saves; yet faith that’s not alone. “

Curious. That’s circular reasoning that obviously tries to have it both ways; yet be faith alone. Torturous on the mind to try to make sense of it.

Essentially, in order to make Luther’s eisegesis work in the face of Greek linguistics, reading comprehension and Church history; the native Greek speaking Jews would have to pick up on all of that immediately or there was a massive Church wide conspiracy to deny the truth or a massive reading comprehension error of 1,500 years that only Luther could point it out for us.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

GOOD Question!

I guess I’m not as busy as Paul was

I’m guessing that, despite your apologia, you truly believe that unity comes from dialogue. I also have a long admiration for your faith, and think you’re a good man.

Thanks for that

I’ll just say,

We know, just being “good”, in the end, is somewhat relative and weak… When Paul talked about faith to the Church of Rome, he complemented them on their "obedience " of faith.

I would just make the point,

One needs to be obedient to the correct faith to get the desired outcome.

 

[Agathon77]

As for the other points, @JonNC; I’ll get to that shortly.

 

[steve-b]

We, OTOH, ALL who are Catholic , are perfectly united to the pope of Rome, successor to Peter. Just as Jesus required.

JonNC:

Oh, Steve, I’ve been here for over a decade. Please do not expect me to accept the “perfectly united” story. It just isn’t true.

I’ve been here since 04

AND

to your point

Just a snippet

from Canon Law

This is what rules the Church world wide http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P16.HTM

JonNC:

On the other hand, since we are looking at scripture:
Mark 9

John answered him, saying: Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, who followeth not us: and we forbade him. 39{38} But Jesus said: Do not forbid him. For there is no man that doth a miracle in my name and can soon speak ill of me. 40{39} For he that is not against you is for you. 41{40} For whosoever shall give you to drink a cup of water in my name, because you belong to Christ: amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.

Jesus was talking about other Jews. Those who weren’t with Him …YET

AND

It’s. why

Jesus was giving His own people first right of refusal for the NEW and everlasting covenant…here

Matt 10:5
These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons…

And Catholics know, in the beginning, the Catholic Church was 100% Jewish.