Sola Scriptura and knowing the whole Bible

[Per_Crucem]

Disunity may be a problem with human nature, but the Catholic Church professes One Faith. Therefore, it does not admit to divisions in the Church. A heretic would simply lose membership in the one Body of Christ.

The reason we rely on Papal infallibility (when it is clear that the Pope is speaking from the Chair of Peter) is the following:

Luke 22:31-32- “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have all of you (plural), that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee (singular), that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted,** confirm thy brethren**.”

Papal primacy is an additional, though, of course, related doctrine that we find in Scripture.

.

Not to be cheeky, Roger, but following your logic (i.e., everything stated about Peter in Scripture is imputed to the present pontiff, i.e., your faith not fail) does that mean if the Pope is wrong I can oppose him to his face and insert a get thee behind me Satan when he is wrong about doctrine? Does every Pope, in virtue of that line of reasoning de facto deny Christ three times, etc?

 

[SteveVH]

I believe the Church elucidates Scripture:

No, this is what you said:

I agree that it contradicts the scriptures.

Yes, or even an angel, if need be, as explained by St. Thomas Aquinas. Do you believe this is impossible for God, or that the Creator does not know the heart and will not protect His elect?

You are making my point. One can be saved even if they have not heard the name of Jesus, therefore the Church is not in contradiction to the Scriptures.

 

[rogergosselin]

The Lutheran Book of Concord states that Mary is the Mother of God, the Theotokos. Lutheran doctrine confesses the Virgin birth and that she prays for us, as do the saints and angels. Luther believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity, and you would find many, if not most Lutherans in agreement. We love the Blessed Mother of our Lord!

Luther was a pastor and theologian, and that is how we regard him. He, along with other early Lutheran theologians produced a volume of work that is distilled into the Book of Concord - which Lutherans regard as correctly interpretive of Scripture.

I am excited to learn that you accept “Mother of God” as an appropriate title for Mary. The Catholic Church teaches this title as a doctrine about Jesus, not specifically about Mary. It professes the mystery of the Incarnation; that Jesus is truly and completely God, while at the same time being truly and completely man. Thus, only in the person of Jesus can God be considered to have a human mother.

All my Protestant friends have bristled at this locution. They would criticize our praying of the “Hail Mary”, not for the first stanza, which derives directly from Scripture, but for the second stanza: “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of our death. Amen.”

Do you find the “Hail Mary” in any way objectionable? Do you pray it?

.

 

[benjohnson]

Do you find the “Hail Mary” in any way objectionable? Do you pray it?

.

Speaking for myself, nothing objectionable about paying an *Ave Maria *.

And yes I pray it… especially when I’m a guest on a Catholic bus going to the Pro-life rally.

Of course, there’s a good joke involved. After saying the prayer, I usually turn to my Catholic friends and say " That’s a really nice prayer! But I have one question: What’s a wombjesus? "

I usually get a good pummeling for that!

 

[adf417]

Speaking for myself, nothing objectionable about paying an *Ave Maria *.

And yes I pray it… especially when I’m a guest on a Catholic bus going to the Pro-life rally.

Of course, there’s a good joke involved. After saying the prayer, I usually turn to my Catholic friends and say " That’s a really nice prayer! But I have one question: What’s a wombjesus? "

I usually get a good pummeling for that!

 

[Per_Crucem]

I am excited to learn that you accept “Mother of God” as an appropriate title for Mary. The Catholic Church teaches this title as a doctrine about Jesus, not specifically about Mary. It professes the mystery of the Incarnation; that Jesus is truly and completely God, while at the same time being truly and completely man. Thus, only in the person of Jesus can God be considered to have a human mother.

All my Protestant friends have bristled at this locution. They would criticize our praying of the “Hail Mary”, not for the first stanza, which derives directly from Scripture, but for the second stanza: “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of our death. Amen.”

Do you find the “Hail Mary” in any way objectionable? Do you pray it?

.

My Catholic wife and I were married in a Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod parish and they sang the Ave Maria, so, no, we don’t find it objectionable per se. The prayer in its current form was developed after the Reformation, so it wasn’t part of those debates. All of the first and second generation Lutherans would’ve prayed the original version, however. We don’t say the prayer because we do not find warrant to specifically ask for the prayers of the departed in Scripture. That’s about our only objection.

 

[rogergosselin]

Not to be cheeky, Roger, but following your logic (i.e., everything stated about Peter in Scripture is imputed to the present pontiff, i.e., your faith not fail) does that mean if the Pope is wrong I can oppose him to his face and insert a get thee behind me Satan when he is wrong about doctrine? Does every Pope, in virtue of that line of reasoning de facto deny Christ three times, etc?

I don’t think you are being cheeky at all (well, maybe a little bit). That is an important question. I can’t personally give full justice to it, but:

Not every word utterred by a Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit with an infallible character. The dogmatic council of Vatican I made this clear by defining the specific conditions that indicate when the Pope is speaking with Peter’s authority.

When the Pope is wrong, it is a Christian’s responsibility to oppose him to his face. This was exemplified by Saint Catherine of Sienna (Here, I admit that I don’t currently remember the full story about Saint Catherine, or even if her name should be spelled “Katherine”).

As a matter of fact, it is magisterial teaching that if a Pope were to remain obstinate in his error, he would fall into heresy and cease to remain Pope. In that case, it would be considered impossible for the proclamation, made in error, to have been in accordance with the criteria stated at Vatican I. Thereafter, any “ex cathedra” claims made by such an anti-pope are null. I don’t know when such error has occurred in history, but I think “Julian the Apostate” is an example.

Another important point is to note that Peter is protected with infallibility, not impeccability. As all in our race, the Pope can sin. Peter certainly did so when he rejected the necessity and benefit to mankind of the Passion of Christ, also when he denied knowing his Savior.

We revere Peter when the Spirit speaks through him.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I don’t think you are being cheeky at all (well, maybe a little bit). That is an important question. I can’t personally give full justice to it, but:

Not every word utterred by a Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit with an infallible character. The dogmatic council of Vatican I made this clear by defining the specific conditions that indicate when the Pope is speaking with Peter’s authority.

Right… but it’s not really what I was addressing by the question. Your statement said that the Pope is infallible because what is true of Peter (i.e., that Christ prays his faith will not fail) is also true of his successors in Rome (interpreting the above to mean that the Pope’s faith will not fail in questions of dogma/doctrine). However, why does only that apply to the Pope, and not all of the negative statements made about Peter? If Christ saying that He has prayed Peter’s faith will not fail is imputed to the Pontiff, why not Peter’s denial of Christ? It seems to be picking and choosing otherwise.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Right… but it’s not really what I was addressing by the question. Your statement said that the Pope is infallible because what is true of Peter (i.e., that Christ prays his faith will not fail) is also true of his successors in Rome (interpreting the above to mean that the Pope’s faith will not fail in questions of dogma/doctrine). However, why does only that apply to the Pope, and not all of the negative statements made about Peter? If Christ saying that He has prayed Peter’s faith will not fail is imputed to the Pontiff, why not Peter’s denial of Christ? It seems to be picking and choosing otherwise.

Right. This is really adjudicating the charisma to the city of Rome than the person of Peter. When the charisma should be to the successors of Peter, all of them, acting together in unison. A la Jerusalem Council and those Councils considered Ecumenical in the 1st 1,000 years.

 

[JonNC]

=rogergosselin;12740177]I am excited to learn that you accept “Mother of God” as an appropriate title for Mary. The Catholic Church teaches this title as a doctrine about Jesus, not specifically about Mary. It professes the mystery of the Incarnation; that Jesus is truly and completely God, while at the same time being truly and completely man. Thus, only in the person of Jesus can God be considered to have a human mother.

Precisely the Lutheran view as well. From the article about the Person of Christ in the Formula of Concord:

On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother’s womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.

All my Protestant friends have bristled at this locution. They would criticize our praying of the “Hail Mary”, not for the first stanza, which derives directly from Scripture, but for the second stanza: “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of our death. Amen.”

Do you find the “Hail Mary” in any way objectionable? Do you pray it?

It is not typical for Lutherans to use the second half of the Hail Mary, though in reality we recognize their role in prayer for us, in a general way.

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

Of course, you cannot be in Catholic communion if you reject Her teachings.

Yes, in Truth. But in reality there are millions! And this doesnt seem to bother many people. Or many people dont see how destructive it is.

1 Cor. 5

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.”

I have needed to be admonished and I probably will again. But what about the ones who after receiving an admonishment refuse to change? This is the cancer within the Church. That is why I say, I have much more respect and common faith with a protestant or non Catholic who does not receive the communion from the hands of the Catholic Church but seeks Gods goodness and obedience to Jesus in a more simple way (I mean simple in a positive way) than those who practice all kinds of devotions to images and religious debasements which appear pious while secretly or openly rejecting the Churchs Teachings.

 

[rcwitness]

Rome teaches the doctrine of fides implicita to cover this. This doctrine indirectly led to the pseudo-universalist statement at Vatican II that those who “through no fault of their own” fail to be properly joined to the RCC (including non-Christians) can be saved. This contradicts the Scriptures, which teach that salvation can be found in Christ alone.

Hey Indifferently,

I have not looked into existing threads about this topic, but I acknowledge its an important issue. I dont mind my thread rolling into various topics, but for its own sake, maybe this deserves its own thread. Let me know if you would like to start one, or if there is an existing thread you recommend and maybe resurrecting.

Thanks for posting in here. I respect your passionate (and Scripture knowledgable) faith

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Perhaps there is another way of putting it. I think the notion of Sola scripture implies you can never submit to someone else’s understanding of divine truth. It must be revealed to you by the holy spirit and reading the text, not by any man’s authority. Can any protestant submit themselves to a theology they might disagree with or not necessarily understand? Under sola scriptura? No.

 

[JonNC]

Perhaps there is another way of putting it. I think the notion of Sola scripture implies you can never submit to someone else’s understanding of divine truth. It must be revealed to you by the holy spirit and reading the text, not by any man’s authority. Can any protestant submit themselves to a theology they might disagree with or not necessarily understand? Under sola scriptura? No.

That’s not the way I have ever understood sola scriptura to be put into practice, but I’m sure there are numerous non-Catholic western groups that do.

Jon

 

[a_priori]

Perhaps there is another way of putting it. I think the notion of Sola scripture implies you can never submit to someone else’s understanding of divine truth. It must be revealed to you by the holy spirit and reading the text, not by any man’s authority. Can any protestant submit themselves to a theology they might disagree with or not necessarily understand? Under sola scriptura? No.

What happens when two people put down their Bibles and proclaim mutually-exclusive “divine truths”?

 

[wmscott]

Perhaps there is another way of putting it. I think the notion of Sola scripture implies you can never submit to someone else’s understanding of divine truth. It must be revealed to you by the holy spirit and reading the text, not by any man’s authority. Can any protestant submit themselves to a theology they might disagree with or not necessarily understand? Under sola scriptura? No.

So by this are you saying that you are relying on your own personal interpretation? If so then why did Christ say that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church in all truth? See Jn 16:13 also in Jn 14:26 - Holy Spirit to teach & remind them of everything in addition 1Tim 3:15 - Church called “pillar and foundation of truth”.

I guess I would like to ask if Christ said these things and established an authoritative Church, to say “any protestant submit themselves to a theology they might disagree with or not necessarily understand” is a disobedient stance against what Christ wanted, is it not?

 

[rcwitness]

So by this are you saying that you are relying on your own personal interpretation? If so then why did Christ say that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church in all truth? See Jn 16:13 also in Jn 14:26 - Holy Spirit to teach & remind them of everything in addition 1Tim 3:15 - Church called “pillar and foundation of truth”.

I guess I would like to ask if Christ said these things and established an authoritative Church, to say “any protestant submit themselves to a theology they might disagree with or not necessarily understand” is a disobedient stance against what Christ wanted, is it not?

First of all, IgnatianPhilo was not claiming this view for himself but rather sharing how he sees the doctrine of SS.

Second, we have JonNC refuting or rejecting this perspective of SS as not of his own but likely of some who do profess SS.

 

[wmscott]

First of all, IgnatianPhilo was not claiming this view for himself but rather sharing how he sees the doctrine of SS.

Second, we have JonNC refuting or rejecting this perspective of SS as not of his own but likely of some who do profess SS.

I understand, I was just asking a question, if it appeared to be a challenge then I poorly communicated my intent. Sorry

 

[rcwitness]

So I have Lutherans, who have expressed that a Christian does NOT have to have read the entire canon of Scripture in order to give them the confirmation of what doctrine to believe or which one to reject. That some Church`s guidance is necessary to explain and interpret Scripture for them. Yet this Church who does so, cannot have the same authority which the Scriptures themself possess.

Therefore, we have millions of Christians, who choose a particular Church which interprets for them what the whole of Scripture supports, regarding doctrine and practice, because they have not read the entire Deposit of Faith (if this is ok to assign Scriptures to SS doctrine) for themselves, and even if they did, they would still not be able to privately/individually draw all of its interpretation from.

 

[Stilldreamn]

Therefore, we have millions of Christians, who choose a particular Church which interprets for them what the whole of Scripture supports, regarding doctrine and practice, because they have not read the entire Deposit of Faith… for themselves, and even if they did, they would still not be able to privately/individually draw all of its interpretation from.

Sounds rather catholic, does it not? The difference between we and thee is that on some things our interpreters do not agree.