Sola scriptura and corrections?

[brianjmc1]

Ianman87 - I respectfully disagree with your last post, on many levels, but I think that would be better addressed in another topic…but I DO appreciate all your informative responses!!!

Maybe I am not clear(which happens a lot)…

baptism - infant baptism\no infant baptism, baptism regenerates\baptism is an outward symbol, baptism is not necessary, baptism cleanses original sin, etc…

Eucharist - Transubstantiation\ Consubstantiation \ symbol

This is what I mean. This is the division I am talking about.

Apparently, different churches are interpreting scripture differently, otherwise there would be ONE church.

Thanks,
Brian

 

[Lenten_ashes]

True – we aren’t apostles. But they did have successors. And those people, like Ignatius, told us, early on, the dangers of flying solo and not listening to those people. You place yourself outside the fold and therefore, become more vulnerable to the enemy who seeks to devour souls.

And the scriptures, as wonderful as they are, were never intended to be utilized as a do it all manual. This is why some baptize babies and others don’t. Some believe in the Eucharist and others don’t. etc, etc. And the scriptures don’t talk about masturbation, porn, heroin use, etc, etc. Because we live in a modern world, ever changing. So you need the Church to draw hard lines in the sand and instruct. But which one? Is there a pillar and foundation of the truth out there 1 Tim 3:15? Or are they all pillars and foundations of only some truth?

It took almost 40 years for this issue to be worked out and a single pope to finally emerge from the chaos. This was at a time when the average lifespan was under 60 years. An entire generation grew up and lived under multiple “infallible” Popes/Magisteriums.

Amazing isn’t it? And yet the Church still persevered through it all. Still the only one to stand on truth and prohibit divorce, contraception, gay marriage, etc, etc. While the rest of the world sways to the whims of modern day society. No major sways doctrinally during that period you mention. God preserved it just as he promised to.

 

[OddBird]

Then if there is ONE Truth, and the Lord promised he would not leave us orphaned, why all of the divisions to this day? Some Christian churches MUST be interpreting scripture wrong or at least not in full understanding of the Truth.

I’d say my tradition does not relate to truth as the Catholic Church does. My own church would probably say that truth, on this side of death, is unattainable, and that we can only hope to draw close to it. It sees the diversity of Christian confessions as different paths to the One Truth (Jesus Christ), none of which can say that it is better than the others.

A priest friend once told me: “Your church’s identity is looking for the truth, my church’s identity is knowing what it is and preserving it”. He was being a bit provocative, but I think he hit the nail on the head.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Great description by your priest friend.

And that was my experience in my years of being non-Catholic and talking to fellow Christians or clergy. You can only really know the core, basic truths. You disagree with a fellow Christian and you quote a somewhat relevant scripture and use your reasoning as to why you came with conclusion X. Then he/she quotes a somewhat relevant scripture and uses their own reasoning as to why they came to conclusion Y. Then somebody quotes Paul saying we see through a mirror dimly and it all comes to an end. But 1 Cor 13 is talking about love, not saying you can’t have all the truth doctrinally. Some things, like the Eucharist will always be a mystery even if we explain it away with fancy titles like Transubstantiation. We understand it dimly now, but then, perfectly.

 

[Mishakel]

Catholics would say “inspired” by God. Is that the same as “given”?

Yes both are the same.

What did “salvation” mean to the Jews at that time? Did it have the same meaning for them as it had for Jesus?

Salvation means spending eternity with all the hosts of Heaven. The meaning of salvation remains the same as in the times of the OT but the path changed because of Jesus.

Yes, of course. No doubt about it. But it doesn’t prompt us to split off from the Church and start a new church of our own. That’s a key difference, seen from the Catholic side. Please take a look at @steph03’s post #2 on this thread. Can you explain why the Baptists feel the need to keep splitting like that, while we’re not even tempted to?

True enough but I could counter the different sects of Baptists wouldn’t consider each other anathematized for having varying beliefs. They simply would rather congregate with others who share their beliefs on scripture. I’ll reiterate these differing opinions normally are not disagreements on pathways to salvation.

You and all other Protestants, or you and some other Protestants?

Obviously I can’t speak for every human who claims to be a Protestant

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to see a contradiction, or at least a near-contradiction, between those two sentences. If you accept that man is incapable of infallibly interpreting every passage, then you have to accept (I think) that certain difficult passages can be interpreted in two or more different ways, and you cannot know for certain which of those interpretations is the correct one. You cannot, then, know which of those interpretations is the “infallible” one. So what does it mean to say that the Biblical text is “infallible” if it’s impossible to know for certain what it means?

I will answer the simplest possible way, even though it might be a bit long winded

Do you believe God is infallible? Our mind is capable of understanding this premise but does that mean you understand everything about God or his ways? The answer is of course not. Do you see the parallel? I don’t have to infallibly understand every prophecy in Daniel or Revelation in order to understand the overall lessons in scripture on what God truly desires from us and how salvation is to be gained.

I will reiterate Catholicism has only dogmatically defined a handful of verses in the entirety of scripture. How do you understand all the other passages? If you rely on the magisterium, you will undoubtedly get different opinions on those passages. If you do believe Catholicism has the authority or power to infallibly define all of scripture I have to ask why has it not done so?

 

[Crocus]

I will reiterate Catholicism has only dogmatically defined a handful of verses in the entirety of scripture. How do you understand all the other passages? If you rely on the magisterium, you will undoubtedly get different opinions on those passages. If you do believe Catholicism has the authority or power to infallibly define all of scripture I have to ask why has it not done so?

Maybe because not every bump in the road will cause the wheel to veer off the path (I say this from experience, recently learning to ride a bike.)

 

[adf417]

My own church would probably say that truth, on this side of death, is unattainable, and that we can only hope to draw close to it.

I find this statement very troubling as a Christian. Either we have truth, in terms of faith, or we do not. Jesus is not sort of the way, close to the truth, and some of the life.

Peace!!!

 

[lanman87]

Amazing isn’t it? And yet the Church still persevered through it all.

Actually, we still feel the effects of The “Avignon Papacy” and “The Great Western Schism” today. This is when Wycliffe and Huss became prominent. The Avignon Popes supported France over England. So English authorities welcomed Wycliffe’s assertions that any ecclesiastical authority that collects taxes for its own benefit, or seeks to expand it powers beyond the sphere of spiritual matters is illegitimate. And because of the scandal of the great schism Wycliffe began to preach “the true church of Christ is not the pope and his visible hierarchy, but the invisible body of those predestined to salvation”.

It was after the Council of Pisa had unintentionally resulted in three popes instead of two and when the 2nd Pisan Pope John XXIII ordered a Crusade against the city of Naples(for political reason), that Huss declared “the Bible is the final authority by which the pope as well as any Christian is to be judged. A pope who does not obey the Bible is not to be obeyed”.

And it was at the Leipizig Debate with Luther in 1519 that he was accused of being a Hussite. Luther didn’t know what that meant so during the break he went to the library and looked up the teachings of Huss. When the debate reconvened Luther proudly declared “Yes, I am a Hussite”. Luther wasn’t familiar with Huss yet he agreed they had reached the same conclusions.

Without the Avignon papacy and the Great Western Schism the reformation would have not unfolded the way it did. It was the discord and distrust of the popes and bishops that developed during this period that was one of the reasons the reformation happened.

After all, if you will lie and cheat for material gain, how do I know you aren’t lying and cheating on other matters? If I can’t trust you with the affairs of the church then how can I trust you with my relationship with God? If you will put political gain ahead of the Gospel of Christ then how can I trust you are speaking the truth in doctrine?

Those are the questions that arose in that time period and they are still being asked today.

 

[OddBird]

I find this statement very troubling as a Christian. Either we have truth, in terms of faith, or we do not.

I get why this can be disturbing.

But this is, I think, because Catholicism and the kind of Protestantism in which I received my theological formation do not have the same appreciation of reason, and I’ll try to explain why as clearly and as objectively as I can (although I think you know where I stand on the matter).

Catholicism, and Thomism in particular, has a very positive approach of reason, and affirms that, being a gift from God, it is able to “rise” to Him on it’s own (like, for example, establishing a rational proof of the existence of God). So, of course, Catholicism strongly affirms that there is an objective truth and that we are perfectly able to know it.

My theological tradition does not have the same starting point. It thinks that the fall has gravely corrupted the human reason’s potential to know God. On its own, reason is powerless to get close to God or to truth. We can only know God because He chose to reveal himself to us, through the prophets in part and then fully in Jesus Christ. So, the only “thing” we can be sure is true is Christ himself. Even the apostles’ witness and teaching is considered as subject to caution, because they were simple men and had an understanding as fallen as ours. This is why my tradition has a hard time calling “truth” any given dogma, because it considers it is at best our twisted and imperfect understanding of something we are fundamentally unable to know by ourselves.

True story : one day, during my doctoral studies, I was going to a conference, sharing a car with my husband and another student. We were following a wonderful road through the Swiss and Italian Alps. The student exclaimed: “What a pity we aren’t Catholic, we could look at these mountains and see the hand of God in them. Instead, we just have to trust He made them, because Jesus revealed us God as the Creator !”

Jesus is not sort of the way, close to the truth, and some of the life

I don’t think even my church would say that

 

[adf417]

I get why this can be disturbing.

:+1:t3:

True story : one day, during my doctoral studies, I was going to a conference, sharing a car with my husband and another student. We were following a wonderful road through the Swiss and Italian Alps. The student exclaimed: “What a pity we aren’t Catholic, we could look at these mountains and see the hand of God in them. Instead, we just have to trust He made them, because Jesus revealed us God as the Creator !”

Very nice story!

Peace!!!

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I know that Wycliffe has been elevated to some sort of hero within the protestant ranks, but in actuality he was quite the troublemaker who preached heresy for years . Attacking the Eucharist …the source, center and summit of the Christian faith, according to him, was now just symbolic. Pretty sure causing division and sowing discord in the body is something that Jesus, Paul and Ignatius of Antioch all preached against. This is a core doctrine that has existed since the early Church. For every Father you guys quote who seems sort of ambiguous on Real presence, we can quote 20 who speak in very clear language in favor of it. I mention this merely so you understand the gravity of the level of heresy he was preaching and why the Church ultimately was so hostile towards him and his ilk.

Now, I do applaud any lover of Sacred Scripture for pushing it as an emphasis for Christians as it should be. But there is a major drawback in pushing Sola Scriptura, because as Luther said in so many words, you will end up with as many ideas as you have people reading it.

I am of the belief that the revolt or reformation was going to happen in similar fashion regardless of the circumstances involved. We are talking about the renaissance era that was more about expressing individuality and new ideas. Combine this with the advent of the printing press and you have all the ingredients to spark a major break within the Church.

After all, if you will lie and cheat for material gain, how do I know you aren’t lying and cheating on other matters? If I can’t trust you with the affairs of the church then how can I trust you with my relationship with God? If you will put political gain ahead of the Gospel of Christ then how can I trust you are speaking the truth in doctrine?

I don’t entrust my relationship with God to the Pope. We have the entire college of Bishops who can speak infallibly through councils. The Pope is powerful and influential, but there are checks and balances involved. And a Pope can not change dogma… he can’t claim that Mary is divine and tell us to worship her. I take much solace in the fact that the deposit of faith is safe regardless of who becomes the Pontiff.

Overall, I believe people become conditioned one way or the other and their upbringing has a lot to do with how they live their adult lives, to include their outlook on matters of faith.

 

[lanman87]

We have the entire college of Bishops who can speak infallibly through councils.

It was that college of bishops who infallibly elected three popes.

 

[brianjmc1]

I could be wrong(as I usually am, and not just about religion…)…
I thought only the Pope, on the chair of Peter can speak infallibility on dogma. This does not happen often. Twice in the last 166 years…

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Overall, It was a disaster.

What other institution could survive it without the promise in Matthew 16?

 

[adf417]

Lenten_ashes:

We have the entire college of Bishops who can speak infallibly through councils.

It was that college of bishops who infallibly elected three popes.

No! They elected only one pope “infallibly”. All other elections were like my second grade election to the presidency.

Western Schism | Catholic Answers Encyclopedia

(3) Most modern doctors uphold the same ideas. It suffices to quote Canon J. Didiot, dean of the faculty of Lille: “If after the election of a pope and before his death or resignation a new election takes place, it is null and schismatic; the one elected is not in the Apostolic Succession. This was seen at the beginning of what is called, somewhat incorrectly, the Great Schism of the West, which was only an apparent schism from a theological standpoint…

And it should not be called “schism”-

…“This dissension was called schism, but incorrectly. No one withdrew from the true Roman pontiff considered as such, but each obeyed the one he regarded as the true pope. They submitted to him, not absolutely, but on condition that he was the true pope. Although there were several obediences, nevertheless there was no schism properly so-called” (De Papa, I, 461).

Peace!!!

 

[lanman87]

What other institution could survive it without the promise in Matthew 16?

There is a difference between being indefectible and being infallible.

 

[brianjmc1]

I don’t want to go off topic, but…

again, infallible is only associated with the Pope speaking on the Chair of Peter on dogma. Not cardinals electing a new pope… with regards to Pope’s, who are human, there have been some pretty bad ones in history, but not one that switched position on dogma.

unless I am wrong(look at my previous replies, or ask my wife…), Lanmac87 - has the Roman Church ever switch their position of Dogma? not (t)raditions, dogma? from my understanding, the Church has clarified dogma as the church matured, but never changed dogma…

 

[lanman87]

again, infallible is only associated with the Pope speaking on the Chair of Peter on dogma.

Really, it is my understanding that when the magisterium “Speaks with one voice” in a council then that decision is also infallible. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong. What I don’t know is that if the election of a Pope is considered a council. It was appear to be as Cardinals from around the world convene, debate, and vote. At least in our modern age where travel is easy compared to the middle ages.

 

[brianjmc1]

I’m sure someone more knowledgable than be can answer…

my understanding, ONLY the Pope can declare something infallible as per dogma. 100% of cardinals can say 2+2=4. but unless the Pope agrees “ex cathedra” will it be infallible and dogma. The cardinals(Apostles in succession other then Peter) do not carry the office of prime minister with the keys given to him alone. Not to offend anyone, this according to Catholic teachings…

If you want to discuss this more, lets start a new thread as this is moving away from my original question. Thank you for all the time and effort you have put in answering. I appreciate it!!!
Brian

 

[BartholomewB]

What I don’t know is that if the election of a Pope is considered a council.

No, the assembly of the cardinals to elect a pope is a conclave, not a council. The word “council” is never used in connection with a conclave.