Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

[paul_c]

1. Actually, you have done an excellent (and very Catholic) job of evading the whole topic all along, trying instead to defend why The Catholic Church is exempt from such. Sometimes you have used classic Catholic apologetics, something your own thoughts (which I’ve found remarkable). But, you’ve never engaged in a discussion of what is the most sound norma normans in norming for exactly the same reason (I suspect) that The Catholic Church doesn’t - it regards the whole topic moot in the singular and exclusive case of itself, since it replaces that issue with the demand of self for self that whatever self alone says must be accepted “with docility.”
2. No. I sincerely think it’s The Catholic Church that has a “problem” with authority. I don’t deny that Catholics HAVE authority (no less than other Christians) but authority always carries with it accountability, it is this that The Catholic Church won’t permit (in the singular case of itself). It (like you - here you are being very Catholic) insist that authority = infallibility, even though it has NOTHING in Scripture or in Tradition or in human experience that remotely suggests that such is EVER the case. It gets around this by essentally equating itself with God.
3. Again, the issue has NEVER been authority, it is the exemption of self alone for self alone of accountability that has been the issue. Norming flows from accountability, and the embraced rule/canon in such is one aspect of that. It’s accountability that The Catholic Church rejects for itself exclusively, and THAT is the reason why it rejects the resuling norming and the issue of the rule/canon in such. Like The Catholic Church, you INSIST that everyone be held accountable - right here, right now (as you have me) but it has just one exeption: itself. Self feeling a need to exempt self from accountability and replace that with the demand of self alone for self alone that whatever self alone says just be accepted with docility has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER to that one being correct. Self just feels some need for that issue to be evaded.

.

Don’t kid yourself. This is all about authority. You’ve already admitted that sola scriptura is not a valid norma norman because it can’t yield reproducable results. The only valid Norma Norman is the Catholic church’s doctrines, which are understandable and repeatable and well known the world over. Any doctrine that disagrees with Catholic Doctrine should be judged as false.

You don’t like the fact that the Catholic Church is the "supreme court"of interpreting God’s doctrines on Earth, but it is what it is. Your protests are even less effective than if they were being made against the US supreme court, which is sustained by the US government, because the Catholic Church is sustained by God.

You’ve failed to defend your thesis and your protests will not topple the Church. Is there any point in continuing this discussion.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Don’t kid yourself. This is all about authority.

Nope. NO ONE is denying that Catholic believers have “authority.”
The question is: are teachers accountable?

IF yes, then norming applies to all teachers, and the first question is this: WHAT is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for such? Some reply that Scripture is (The Rule of Scripture, aka Sola Scriptura). The Catholic Church has no alternative.

IF no, then why is it a sound epistemology and good rubric for one to simply exempt self exclusively from accountability, declaring self alone to be infallible, incapable of wrong, and thus circumvent the issue and rather instead declare that all must just accept whatever self alone says with docility?

You’ve already admitted that sola scriptura is not a valid norma norman because it can’t yield reproducable results.

No, I pointed out the absurdity of that. You don’t reject the Rule of Law in civil societies just because not all attorneys necessarily have the exact same itnerpretation of the law or that every case under such results in the exact same conclusion; and it is hardly superior for a defendant to simply circumvent the whole issue by declaring that he alone is unaccountable, exempt from norming, incapable of wrong so therefore, he’s not. Whatever he alone said or did is just to be accepted by all “with docility.”

The only valid Norma Norman is the Catholic church’s doctrines

Using the views of self as the rule/canon for the correctness of the views of self is just self agreeing with self - it’s ENTIRELY MOOT to the issue of whether self is correct. Heck, I agree with me, and yet you aren’t arguing that ergo I MUST be infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, whatever I say is what Jesus says, and all I alone say must be accepted with docility.

.

 

[DCNBILL]

Using the views of self as the rule/canon for the correctness of the views of self is just self agreeing with self - it’s ENTIRELY MOOT to the issue of whether self is correct. Heck, I agree with me, and yet you aren’t arguing that ergo I MUST be infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, whatever I say is what Jesus says, and all I alone say must be accepted with docility.
.

Note that this statement would be true unless the “self” is The Body of Christ. God is the Authority that the Church rests its “norms” on.

Let us offer one another a sign of peace,

bill

 

[CWBetts]

It is most definitely about authority. The sole reason that Protestantism of any stripe exists is because of abject refusal to accept the hierarchical authority of the Church. All kinds of excuses are posited, but what it comes down to is rejection of authority.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

It is most definitely about authority

Wrong.

NO ONE denies that Christians registered in congregations legally affiliated with The Catholic Church have authority. I have not denounced ANY Catholic here - teaching away - that they have “no authority” to post.

The issue is accountability, for that is the singular issue to which Sola Scriptura addresses. Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon in nomring - which is the process of evaluating the correctness of doctrines, all based on the view that teachings are ACCOUNTABLE.

The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura because it rejects accountability in the exclusive case of itself alone (and thus norming and all aspects of that, including WHATEVER might serve as the rule/canon in such). It circumvents the issue of its correctness and instead substitutes the demand of self alone that whatever self alone says is simply to be accepted “with docility.” NO ONE is questioning a Catholics “authority” to teach, we are jsut questioning the soundless in determining correctness of self exempting self from accountability for such.

abject refusal to accept the hierarchical authority of the Church.

… I assume you mean The CATHOLIC Church… Let me ask, besides God and itself, to what does The Catholic Church submit? If Protestants are all accountable for what we teach, in fact if every teacher of every nature in every discipline - in fact, every person in every aspect of their lives is accountable and CANNOT exempt self alone from such, why are you supporting that one insists on doing just that? And why to do you think that when one circumvents the whole issue of the correctness of his teachings and instead insists rather that all just accept whatever he alone says “with docility,” why to you think THAT makes that ONE not only correct but infallible? Have you studied any of the cults?

.

 

[paul_c]

Wrong.

NO ONE denies that Christians registered in congregations legally affiliated with The Catholic Church have authority. I have not denounced ANY Catholic here - teaching away - that they have “no authority” to post.

The issue is accountability, for that is the singular issue to which Sola Scriptura addresses. Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon in nomring - which is the process of evaluating the correctness of doctrines, all based on the view that teachings are ACCOUNTABLE.

The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura because it rejects accountability in the exclusive case of itself alone (and thus norming and all aspects of that, including WHATEVER might serve as the rule/canon in such). It circumvents the issue of its correctness and instead substitutes the demand of self alone that whatever self alone says is simply to be accepted “with docility.” NO ONE is questioning a Catholics “authority” to teach, we are jsut questioning the soundless in determining correctness of self exempting self from accountability for such.

… I assume you mean The CATHOLIC Church… Let me ask, besides God and itself, to what does The Catholic Church submit? If Protestants are all accountable for what we teach, in fact if every teacher of every nature in every discipline - in fact, every person in every aspect of their lives is accountable and CANNOT exempt self alone from such, why are you supporting that one insists on doing just that? And why to do you think that when one circumvents the whole issue of the correctness of his teachings and instead insists rather that all just accept whatever he alone says “with docility,” why to you think THAT makes that ONE not only correct but infallible? Have you studied any of the cults?

.

Besides God and the past precedents of the Church, who should the Church submit to? Don’t you see, there is no one with more authority.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Note that this statement would be true unless the “self” is The Body of Christ.

No, It is exclusively and solely The Catholic Church. Search all you want, outside of The Catholic Church, you will not find the claim of self that self alone is infallible/unaccountable and that all must just accept whatever it says with docility (CCC 87 for example). Search the Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox. Search the Lutheran Catechism. Search the Westminster Confession or the Thirty-Nine Articles. Nope, the Body of Christ has never claimed that (indeed, The Catholic Church won’t permit it to), it is only The Catholic Church that so circumvents accountability and rather insists that self alone is exempt from such and instead all must just accept whatever it exclusively says “with docility.”

.

 

[Echo_Angels]

It is most definitely about authority. The sole reason that Protestantism of any stripe exists is because of abject refusal to accept the hierarchical authority of the Church. All kinds of excuses are posited, but what it comes down to is rejection of authority.

I guess the reason which I reject the authority of the Catholic faith is that their doctrines conflicts with “my” interpretation of the bible.

The question is what truth? When a doctrine whether Catholic or not does not match what’s being described in the scripture, one of them is in error. Either the interpretation or the doctrine.

Since the Catholics has valued all doctrines to be infallible, the only thing left is the interpretation.

I don’t and can’t accept that… I accept that the doctrines of my church is fallible (my catechism can and has been changed) if proven to be wrong by the scripture. My church is fallible, people interpretation is fallible, but what’s not the meaning from the scripture. We are to reason through the meaning as Paul himself command through the renewing of our mind.

 

[paul_c]

No, It is exclusively and solely The Catholic Church. Search all you want, outside of The Catholic Church, you will not find the claim of self that self alone is infallible/unaccountable and that all must just accept whatever it says with docility (CCC 87 for example). Search the Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox. Search the Lutheran Catechism. Search the Westminster Confession or the Thirty-Nine Articles. Nope, the Body of Christ has never claimed that (indeed, The Catholic Church won’t permit it to), it is only The Catholic Church that so circumvents accountability and rather insists that self alone is exempt from such and instead all must just accept whatever it exclusively says “with docility.”

.

More appropriately, it is the only church that has the authority to teach the Gospel. All the others are pretenders.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Don’t you see, there is no one with more authority.

Even if that were true (and we have ONLY the insistence of itself for itself on that), it is moot to the issue. Who in the USA has more authority than President Obama? Is he therefore infallible, incapable of wrong, unaccountable, whatever he says Jesus says, and all MUST just accept whatever he says or does “with docility?”

You continue to confuse authority with unaccountability. Actually, you have it reversed! The more authority and responsibility we have in life, the MORE accountable we are for what we do and say.

IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident that the truth will be revealed by the light, unconcerned about his power or ability to lord it over others. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shadow his teachings from the light, exempt himself from accountability and norming, substituting instead the demand of self alone for self alone that whatever self alone says must just be accepted “with docility.”

.

 

[kepha1]

AmericanJosiah, if you have been entrusted to pay the rent/mortgage, take out the garbage, bring in the groceries, do you do so with docility or with kicking and screaming? Since when does docility always mean bending to the will of a power hungry control freak or a dominating dictator? Was the Blessed Virgin Mom wrong for being docile to the will of God? How many martyrs are falsely “docile” to the teachings of the Church when they are killed?

It is the Church’s stand on abortion that disturbs you?
Contraception?
How about the sanctity of Matrimony?
In my opinion, one main reason people leave the Catholic Church is that they refuse to be honest about what an annulment means.

But no, it’s none of these things, right? I propose you have been poisoned by hate propaganda that has been trying to demonize Church authority since the so called Reformation. This may be one reason why you offer only shallow rhetoric with no references. Your understanding of Church authority is more Islamic than it is Protestant, and you continue to redefine the Church that force fits into reformist polemics.

 

[paul_c]

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul c
Don’t you see, there is no one with more authority.

Who would the Catholic Church be accountable to other than God?
Who do you presume that the Catholic church should ask for validation of what they teach?

 

[paul_c]

I guess the reason which I reject the authority of the Catholic faith is that their doctrines conflicts with “my” interpretation of the bible.

So this means that you personally have more knowledge and insight than the Chruch Jesus founded on the rock of St. Peter 2000 years ago. You alone have more insight that millions of Catholic clergy and theologians over those centuries including some of mankinds more briliant minds… Don’t you recognize how presumptuous that is.

The question is what truth? When a doctrine whether Catholic or not does not match what’s being described in the scripture, one of them is in error. Either the interpretation or the doctrine.

The Catholic church compiled the bible, deliberately excluding works that were contrary to its doctrines. Therefore, by definition, Scripture agrees with Catholic doctrine. If you read the Scriptures in a way that seems to make it inconsistent with Catholic teaching, you can be sure that the error is in your interpretation.

Since the Catholics has valued all doctrines to be infallible, the only thing left is the interpretation.

Truth is absolute and does not change.

I don’t and can’t accept that… I accept that the doctrines of my church is fallible (my catechism can and has been changed) if proven to be wrong by the scripture. My church is fallible, people interpretation is fallible, but what’s not the meaning from the scripture. We are to reason through the meaning as Paul himself command through the renewing of our mind.

Your church is indeed fallible, because it lacks the fullness of truth that is held by the Catholic Church. It is an easy test. Every doctrine it holds that is inconsistent with Catholic teaching is in error. I know its hard for you to hear this, but it is the truth. And if your church changes what it thinks is the truth, how can you know what is required for salvation?

 

[Des]

outside of The Catholic Church, you will not find the claim of self that self alone is infallible/unaccountable and that all must just accept whatever it says with docility (CCC 87 for example).

You and every other Christian I know accept the group of men who wrote the New Testament to be unaccountable yes? That whatever they wrote down for the faithful, contains absolute truth IF the proper interpretation is applied. The only difference is you find one group (Catholic Church) dangerous and absurd while your group is just fine and dandy.

 

[CWBetts]

I guess the reason which I reject the authority of the Catholic faith is that their doctrines conflicts with “my” interpretation of the bible.

The question is what truth? When a doctrine whether Catholic or not does not match what’s being described in the scripture, one of them is in error. Either the interpretation or the doctrine.

Since the Catholics has valued all doctrines to be infallible, the only thing left is the interpretation.

I don’t and can’t accept that… I accept that the doctrines of my church is fallible (my catechism can and has been changed) if proven to be wrong by the scripture. My church is fallible, people interpretation is fallible, but what’s not the meaning from the scripture. We are to reason through the meaning as Paul himself command through the renewing of our mind.

Your own interpretation of the scriptures is irrelevant. Part of proper interpretation is to see if your interpretation matches with the traditional teaching of the Church. If there is a conflict, your personal interpretation is in error.

 

[DCNBILL]

No, It is exclusively and solely The Catholic Church. Search all you want, outside of The Catholic Church, you will not find the claim of self that self alone is infallible/unaccountable and that all must just accept whatever it says with docility (CCC 87 for example). Search the Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox. Search the Lutheran Catechism. Search the Westminster Confession or the Thirty-Nine Articles. Nope, the Body of Christ has never claimed that (indeed, The Catholic Church won’t permit it to), it is only The Catholic Church that so circumvents accountability and rather insists that self alone is exempt from such and instead all must just accept whatever it exclusively says “with docility.”
.

Yes, that is exactly correct and the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ, kick as you will “against the goad” you will not rest in peace until you accept this, and I believe that is exactly why you are here. My prayers are with you brother.

Let us offer each other the sign of peace,

bill

 

[AmericanJosiah]

You and every other Christian I know accept the group of men who wrote the New Testament to be unaccountable yes?

No.

I accept that the author is. In the words of The Handbook of The Catholic Faith (page 136), “The Bible is the inscripturated words of God and as such, there is no greater credence. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the Author of the Bible. God guided the penmen to write just as He wished.” As my Catholic teachers said, the Bible is inerrant because God is. I agree.

But you seem to be missing the point. A rule/canon need not be inerrant to be a sound rule. In civil societies, we embrace the Rule of Law as our canon for behaviors, and yet no one believes that our laws are inerrant or even unaccountable - we still embrace it as the rule. If a nice policeman pulls you over and notes that you were driving 60 MPH and then directs your attention to the sign posted right next to you, a big, white, square sign with bold black numerals and letters that proclaims: 'MAX SPEED LIMIT: 45 MPH" it is not relevant whether you believe that law is inerrant or even unaccountable, simply that it is the rule/canon for driving here and now, and BOTH you and the policeman are subject to IT - a rule that is knowable by both of you and alterable by neither of you, above, outside and beyond the two of you.

The only difference is you find one group (Catholic Church) dangerous and absurd while your group is just fine and dandy.

Actually, I reject the rubric you and the other Catholics are defending: That a defendant should just exempt himself exclusively from accountablity, laying aside if such is wrong or right, and in its place self demanding that whatever self says simply be accepted with docility. It’s not an alternative approach to norming, it’s simply the circumvention of such by self alone for self alone, and the insistence of self alone that whatever self alone says just be accepted “with docility.” I find that rubric entirely moot since obviously it has nothing whatsoever to do with self being correct (in fact, it circumvents the whole issue), and my study of the cults tells me it is a very dangerous (as well as life; my reading of “Lord of the Flies” comes to mind).

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

AmericanJosiah, if you have been entrusted to pay the rent/mortgage, take out the garbage, bring in the groceries, do you do so with docility or with kicking and screaming?

1. It would be relevant if I - specifically - have been so commanded. You should keep in mind that The Catholic Church has never been asked to do anything (at least not by God or any Apostle, in Scripture or anywhere outside The Catholic Church). It has never been authorized or promised anything about anything, concerning anything, for or about anything, at any time, in any context, by anyone or anything. Not once. Not ever. Of course, it’s not so much as even mentioned in Scripture, by anyone, even so much as in passing. We all know that.
2. Being authorized to do something is entirely unrelated to being infallible and exempt from accountability and norming. President Obama perhaps has greater authority than anyone in the USA (if not the world). He LITERALLY holds the life of every human being in his hands, since he has the authority to push that red button and exterminate the world. But, HE SPECIFICALLY has been given that authority (he alone simply didn’t grab it for himself alone) and it does NOT mean you MUST thereby affirm that he is INFALLIBLE, incapable of wrong, unaccountable, exempt from all norming, whatever he says is what Jesus says, whatever he says or does is simply to be accepted “with docility”

.

 

[paul_c]

1. It would be relevant if I - specifically - have been so commanded. You should keep in mind that The Catholic Church has never been asked to do anything (at least not by God or any Apostle, in Scripture or anywhere outside The Catholic Church). It has never been authorized or promised anything about anything, concerning anything, for or about anything, at any time, in any context, by anyone or anything. Not once. Not ever. Of course, it’s not so much as even mentioned in Scripture, by anyone, even so much as in passing. We all know that.
2. Being authorized to do something is entirely unrelated to being infallible and exempt from accountability and norming. President Obama perhaps has greater authority than anyone in the USA (if not the world). He LITERALLY holds the life of every human being in his hands, since he has the authority to push that red button and exterminate the world. But, HE SPECIFICALLY has been given that authority (he alone simply didn’t grab it for himself alone) and it does NOT mean you MUST thereby affirm that he is INFALLIBLE, incapable of wrong, unaccountable, exempt from all norming, whatever he says is what Jesus says, whatever he says or does is simply to be accepted “with docility”

.

How do you not understand that this entire discussion is now about your denial of the Catholic Church’s charter, responsibility, and protection by Jesus. You deny this at your own peril.

This discussion has never really been about Sola Scriptura, has it?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

This discussion has never really been about Sola Scriptura, has it?

Not for you or for The Catholic Church. That’s because the fundamental issue is ACCOUNTABILITY. You are correct, norming (and the issue of what best serves as the rule/canon in such) is moot if there is no accountability and whatever must rather just be accepted with docility. Which is why you (and the other Catholics here) have applied the Catholic apologetic here (most of you have been good Catholic apologists here) - the issue of this thread is MOOT in the singular, exclusive case of The Catholic Church alone, since The Catholic Church alone insists that The Catholic Church alone is infallible, incapable of error (under certain conditions) and thus it alone exempts it alone from accountability - and thus norming. THAT is the apologetic you have been trying to support, why the topic is moot in the singular case of The Catholic Church. I have held to the position that teachers should be regarded as accountable. I have noted that God warned us repeatedly about false teachers, and asked you for where The Catholic Church is specifically excluded from that possibility, but obviously you have nothing. I have quoted for you were Jesus praised the Ephesian Christians for doing the opposite of what The Catholic Church demands (CCC 87) by praising them for regarding teachers as fallible and accountable, for testing, for arbitrating the issue, and for finding those teachers to be false. I have brought up the cults and criminals - all revealing that it is flawed and dangerous for self to simply exempt self from accountability. You have ignored all that. You (supporting The Catholic Church) are simply insisting the topic is MOOT for just one: The Catholic Church, exclusively. Since you refuse to accept accountability for your denomination exclusively (as you may not - it doesn’t permit you to), the issue of this thread is moot, from your perspective. Of course, you don’t agree with your own position since if any OTHER does as you suggest is the most sound rubric, you ridicule it (as you should). Interesting how consistently, you have been rejecting your own arguments.

IF you accept that teachers are accountable (including Martin Luther, Pope Benedict, The Catholic Church or The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod - and all others), then the issue of this thread becomes relevant, because that embrace requires norming and norming’s first issue is the most sound rule/canon for such. But - you are not permitted by The Catholic Church do so this. You are required by it alone to exempt it alone from accountability. You are rather, instead, required to simply accept whatever IT alone says - “with docility” while embracing that this rubric is absurd and dangerous and unbiblical except for one exclusively: itself.

IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident that God’s Truth will be revealed in the light. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from examination, exempt his teachings from accountability and norming. He must circumvent the whole issue of whether self is correct and replace that with the demand of self alone that whatever self alone says just be accepted “with docility.” Read your Catechism #87 for starters. You might be interested in noting this same requirement is found in all the cults, but it is missing from every Christian denomination except one: The Catholic Church.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.