Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

[paul_c]

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.

In Reveletions 2: Jesus applauds the Ephesians for turning away the heretics. How did they know they were heretics? They knew because they diverged from Catholic teaching. That is the norm.

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.

The church today is held accountable to previous church teachings, That is its norm, as you describe it.

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.

You are attacking a strawman. The churches teachings are all held in the light and anyone can examine them completely to gain understanding. The church does not demand blind faith and it does not force anyone to be Catholic. It offers a set of truths, those who follow docilely are Catholic. Those that don’t condemn themselves.

By the way, you haven’t answered the question: Who should Pope Benedict be accountable to?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

The Foundational Question:

Are teachers ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach, especially as doctrine? It something correct simply because the one exclusively so teaching exclusively so insists? Can a teacher simply circumvent the issue of whether his teaching is correct, and replace it with the demand of self that whatever self says simply must be accepted with docility? Is that a sound rubric, a sound epistemology? Especially considering that God repeatedly and boldly warned us of FALSE teachers, antichrists, and those that lead many astray? Especially considering, for example, Jesus’ praise of the Ephesian Christians for regarding teachers as potentially errant and accountable, for testing them, for arbitrating the issue, and for finding them false (Rev. 2:2)? Is it a sound rubric for a defendant to simply exempt self exclusively from accountablility for the issue under review, self instead demanding that self alone be excluded from accountability - and rather whatever he did or said simply be accepted “with docility” as correct? OR should all teachers be regarded as accountable?

IMHO, not only should teachers of Christian doctrine be accountable, but the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident the light will reveal God’s truth. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teaching from examination, exempt himself exclusively from accountability, lay aside the issue of whether he is correct, and replace all that with the insistence of self alone that whatever self alone says just be accepted “with docility.” My study of the cults confirms this rather strongly.

The objection of The Catholic Church is NOT that it has an alternative rule/canon for the norming of its doctrines. It doesn’t. It’s objection is to accountability; it alone exempts it alone from such, replacing it with the demand of self alone that self alone be accepted with docility (CCC 87, for example).

Norming:

In ALL disciplines (nothin’ unique about theology in this sense), there is the issue of norming. A position is taken. Unless one is a raging relativist, the issue then becomes “is it correct?” Addressing that question is called “norming.”

The Norma Normans:

In norming, normally the first issue is WHAT will be embraced as the “norma normans” (as it’s called in epistemology). WHAT will serve as the “rule” (straight edge) or “canon” (measuring stick)? WHAT will be the standard, the plumbline? My degree is in physics. For us, the norma normans is math and repeatable, observable experimental evidence. If I write a scientific paper, taking a position, I must norm my position according to one or both of those things in a convincing way. Everyone else has the responsibility to tear it apart (the purpose of publishing a paper - to open myself to critical review) and then I MUST support my position - or remove it. The “burden of proof” is ENTIRELY mine - but all others will attack what I propose in hopes of revealing weaknesses and to force me to support (or remove or refine) my position. The “canon” for us is math and/or repeatable, observable experimental evidence. I cannot say it’s true cuz I say it is or because my paper says it is, I can’t point to a dream I had after hitting my head on the toilet or that I alone agree with I alone - those are not recognized canons for physics. It is generally upheld that the “best” canon/rule is the most objective (the least subjective), historically embraced, broadly embraced, accepted as reliable by all parties invovled in the evaluation, ABOVE and OUTSIDE all parties so that none can alter such.

Illustration: Bob has a contract to build a wall six feet tall. He has now completed the wall and claims that it is six feet tall (that is his position). The question now becomes: is it? Is his position correct? (Norming). Well, he could SAY it is, and I could SAY it’s not and we’d have nothing more than “he says, he says.” Maybe Jim says it’s actually 4 feet tall. Robert says its 7 feet tall. And Sharon says it’s 15 feet tall! They all have something to say… The first question in the process, the praxis, is to determine WHAT we will use as the rule/canon/norma normans, the canon (“measuring stick”)? Perhaps we all agree with use the standard Sears Measuring Tape. THAT, then, would be the embraced canon/rule/norma normans.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon (“measuring stick”), rule (“straight edge”) or norma normans (as it’s called in epistemology) in the norming of doctrines. That praxis is called Sola Scriptura. It is rejected by The Catholic Church (as well as all cults) not because it has an alternative rule/canon for the norming of its teachings (it doesn’t), but because it rejects the norming of its teachings (but only it’s OWN teachings).

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[paul_c]

So, answer the direct question, instead of restating your thesis.

who should Pope Benedict be accountable to ?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

Norming:

In ALL disciplines (nothin’ unique about theology in this sense), there is the issue of norming. A position is taken. Unless one is a raging relativist, the issue then becomes “is it correct?” Addressing that question is called “norming.”

The Norma Normans:

In norming, normally the first issue is WHAT will be embraced as the “norma normans” (as it’s called in epistemology). WHAT will serve as the “rule” (straight edge) or “canon” (measuring stick)? WHAT will be the standard, the plumbline? It is generally upheld that the “best” canon/rule is the most objective (the least subjective), historically embraced, broadly embraced, accepted as reliable by all parties invovled in the evaluation, ABOVE and OUTSIDE all parties so that none can alter such.

Illustration: Bob has a contract to build a wall six feet tall. He has now completed the wall and claims that it is six feet tall (that is his position). The question now becomes: is it? Is his position correct? (Norming). Well, he could SAY it is, and I could SAY it’s not and we’d have nothing more than “he says, he says.” Maybe Jim says it’s actually 4 feet tall. Robert says its 7 feet tall. And Sharon says it’s 15 feet tall! They all have something to say… The first question in the process, the praxis, is to determine WHAT we will use as the rule/canon/norma normans, the canon (“measuring stick”)? Perhaps we all agree with use the standard Sears Measuring Tape. THAT, then, would be the embraced canon/rule/norma normans.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon (“measuring stick”), rule (“straight edge”) or norma normans (as it’s called in epistemology) in the norming of doctrines. That praxis is called Sola Scriptura. It is rejected by The Catholic Church (as well as all cults) not because it has an alternative rule/canon for the norming of its teachings (it doesn’t), but because it rejects the norming of its teachings (but only it’s OWN teachings).

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

So, answer the direct question, who should Pope Benedict be accountable to ?

Under the Rule of Scripture, his teachings would be accountable to Scripture. However, The Catholic Church denies the validity of the question - not for the Pope exactly (as long as he is only speaking on behalf of The Catholic Church), it is The Catholic Church that circumvents the issue of the correctness of its doctrines, insisting instead that it alone rather simply be accepted with docility.

The foundational question is this: Are teachers ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach, especially as doctrine? Is a doctrine correct simply because the one so exclusively so teaching exclusively so insists that it is? Is it a sound rubric for a teacher simply circumvent the issue of whether his teaching is correct, substituting that issue with the demand of self alone that whatever self alone says simply must be accepted with docility? Is that a sound rubric, a sound epistemology? Especially considering that God repeatedly and boldly warned us of FALSE teachers, antichrists, and those that lead many astray? Especially considering, for example, Jesus’ praise of the Ephesian Christians for regarding teachers as potentially errant and accountable, for testing them, for arbitrating the issue, and for finding them false (Rev. 2:2)? Is it a sound rubric for a defendant to simply exempt self exclusively from accountablility for the issue under review, self instead demanding that self alone be excluded from accountability - and rather whatever he did or said simply be accepted “with docility” as correct? OR should all teachers be regarded as accountable?

IMHO, not only should teachers of Christian doctrine be accountable, but the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident the light will reveal God’s truth. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teaching from examination, exempt himself exclusively from accountability, lay aside the issue of whether he is correct, and replace all that with the insistence of self alone that whatever self alone says just be accepted “with docility.” My study of the cults confirms this rather strongly.

The objection of The Catholic Church is NOT that it has an alternative rule/canon for the norming of its doctrines. It doesn’t. It’s objection is to accountability; it alone exempts it alone from such, replacing it with the demand of self alone that self alone be accepted with docility (CCC 87, for example). IF you accept that teachers (Jim Jones, Martin Luther, Pope Benedict, St Augustine, Joseph Smith, Billy Graham, The Catholic Church, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, The United Methodist Church), IF you accept that teachers are accountable for their teaching (especially doctrine), then you have embraced the need for norming - for all of them. And the first question in such is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon for such? IF the Catholic Church had a better alternative (or even a worse one) for the norming of its teachings, it would offer such. It doesn’t. It simply rejects the whole issue of accountability for itself exclusively, insisting instead that whatever it alone says just must be accepted “with docility.”

.

 

[paul_c]

Under the Rule of Scripture, his teachings would be accountable to Scripture. However, The Catholic Church denies the validity of the question - not for the Pope exactly (as long as he is only speaking on behalf of The Catholic Church), it is The Catholic Church that circumvents the issue of the correctness of its doctrines, insisting instead that it alone rather simply be accepted with docility.

Actually Benedict is accountable to uphold the tradition of the Church, which includes scripture. But he does not have to answer to every interpretation of scripture, but only the historical interpretation of the Catholic Church. And he certainly doesn’t have to agree with how you interpret scripture.

The foundational question is this: Are teachers ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach, especially as doctrine? Is a doctrine correct simply because the one so exclusively so teaching exclusively so insists that it is? Is it a sound rubric for a teacher simply circumvent the issue of whether his teaching is correct, substituting that issue with the demand of self alone that whatever self alone says simply must be accepted with docility? Is that a sound rubric, a sound epistemology? Especially considering that God repeatedly and boldly warned us of FALSE teachers, antichrists, and those that lead many astray? Especially considering, for example, Jesus’ praise of the Ephesian Christians for regarding teachers as potentially errant and accountable, for testing them, for arbitrating the issue, and for finding them false (Rev. 2:2)? Is it a sound rubric for a defendant to simply exempt self exclusively from accountablility for the issue under review, self instead demanding that self alone be excluded from accountability - and rather whatever he did or said simply be accepted “with docility” as correct? OR should all teachers be regarded as accountable?

Of course teachers are accountable to what they teach. They must teach the apostolic faith. And when they don’t, like the Nicolaitans discussed in Revelations, they are labled as heretics. But you must recognize that the test of their orthodoxy is whether they confirm to the Traditions of the Church., not the bible which didn’t exist at this time.

IMHO, not only should teachers of Christian doctrine be accountable, but the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident the light will reveal God’s truth. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teaching from examination, exempt himself exclusively from accountability, lay aside the issue of whether he is correct, and replace all that with the insistence of self alone that whatever self alone says just be accepted “with docility.” My study of the cults confirms this rather strongly.

The church is not afraid of accountablility, nor does it hide in secrecy. Just because it insists that what it states is the truth, does not make it akin to a cult.

The objection of The Catholic Church is NOT that it has an alternative rule/canon for the norming of its doctrines. It doesn’t. It’s objection is to accountability; it alone exempts it alone from such, replacing it with the demand of self alone that self alone be accepted with docility (CCC 87, for example). IF you accept that teachers (Jim Jones, Martin Luther, Pope Benedict, St Augustine, Joseph Smith, Billy Graham, The Catholic Church, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, The United Methodist Church), IF you accept that teachers are accountable for their teaching (especially doctrine), then you have embraced the need for norming - for all of them. And the first question in such is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon for such? IF the Catholic Church had a better alternative (or even a worse one) for the norming of its teachings, it would offer such. It doesn’t. It simply rejects the whole issue of accountability for itself exclusively, insisting instead that whatever it alone says just must be accepted “with docility.”

Its time for you to start supporting the rash and inflamatory statements you have been making or you need to stop making them

prove that the church operates in darkness
prove that the chruch’s objection to sola Scriptura is because of a fear of accountability

Finally the church’s teachings are the norm for teaching. Period. This includes, tradition, scripture and the teachings of the magesterium. It is both more complete and more reproducable than scripture alone and has been consistent for 2000 years.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Actually Benedict is accountable

Ah, so let me see if I understand this:
According to the insistence of The Catholic Church EVERY TEACHER on the planet is accountable.

Me
You
Martin Luther
St. Benedict.
St. Ignatius
Joseph Smith
St. Augustine.
Mary Baker Eddy.
Billy Graham.
John Calvin.
Arius.
Brigham Young.
Jim Jones.
The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
The United Reformed Church in America.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
The Evangelical Church of Sweden
The Presbyterian Church USA
The Anglican Church of Australia

on and on and on and on and on
EVERYONE
EVERYTHING

Except one.
Itself.

Whatever it alone says is not accountable and is exempt from norming (and thus WHATEVER the norma normans may be for such). The critical point for every OTHER teacher is simply to be circumvented in the singular case of The Catholic Church exclusively. The Catholic Church replaces all that in the singular case of The Catholic Church with the insistence of The Catholic Church that whatever The Catholic Church alone says is rather to just be accepted with docility as Jesus speaking. (CCC # 87for starters)

Of course teachers are accountable to what they teach.

Square that with what The Catholic Church says about itself in its Catechism # 87, for example. To what is it accountable?

Now, before you answer: “To God on judgment day” (the typical and standard Catholic response) I remind you that that is REJECTED by the very same Catholic Church. It insist that all are accountable RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW - never hesitating to declare OTHERS to be heretics, to excommunicate, to burn at the stake - right here, right now. It REJECTS the very notion it uses: that teachers are NOT accountable on earth or in present time but ONLY by God and ONLY on Judgment day. Did Pope Leo say to Martin Luther, “It’s not our role to say if you are right or not, God be with you and bless you mightily - and we leave all to God’s judgment, until then - you are an honored cleric and professor, my brother!” Nope.

Or before you answer: “To the Tradition of The Catholic Church” (another point often raised by laity), two things. First, this is the rule/canon for OTHERS - not for The Catholic Church. NO ONE is to subject the 2,875 points of The Catholic Church to Tradition, he is to simply accept such “with docility.” The Catholic Church insists that it CANNOT err (in some matters, under some conditions) - it is INFALLIBLE, and therefore, it is unaccountable. It is it’s reason for rejecting Sola Scriptura - it’s exempt from norming and thus from ANY norma normans. Now, YES, it holds every OTHER one accountable, and it does have a “rule/canon” for THEM. It’s just** itself**. “IF I determine that they agree with ME, then obviously they are right cuz I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right, so I’m right. And so if any doesn’t agree with me they are wrong; why can’t Protestants understand that?” For OTHERS (NOT itself) it has a rule/canon. Formally, it is as follows:
A) The Tradition of The Catholic Church as The Catholic Church alone chooses, defines and interprets: it is the corpus of what The Catholic Church affirms.
B) The Scripture NOT on any page or in words that can be read by all but in the heart of The Catholic Church as interpreted exclusively and solely by The Catholic Church so as to agree with The Catholic Church.
**C) ** The Magisterium of The Catholic Church alone as chosen by The Catholic Church among those pledged upon death to uphold the teachings and claims of The Catholic Church as well as their own views, rulings, interpretations, and arbitrations.
These three INSEPARATELY for ONE rule/canon, one “stream” (as my Catholic teachers put it), so that each must agree with the others. So if the Magisterium of The Catholic Church says something, Scripture MUST be interpreted to agree with that - even if such must be by words nowhere existing in Scripture since Scripture is required to agree with the Magisterium of The Catholic Church (God required to agree with The Catholic Church?). But, as ALL admit, this is just SELF. This is why The Catholic Church rejects this as a rule/canon for SELF - it would just be a perfect circle of self authentication, entirely worthless as a rule for SELF (self would just be looking in the mirror - EVERYONE is right if THAT rule is used). BUT, it argue it is valid in examining OTHERS (which it DOES hold as accountable - just not itself). Itself, however is infallible and thus exempt from accountablity.

.

 

[LionHeart777]

Individual members of the Catholic Church are accountable to God IMO.

“1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.”

(biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=become+teachers)

Now, this matter of accountability can be put to rest, no?

We Catholics propose to have a better norma norman than Sola Scriptura.

That is Sacred Tradition of which I believe Sacred Scripture is a subset.

IMO, Sacred Tradition and the teaching of the Magisterium are a better norma norman.

Also American Josiah, if the distinctives of the Catholic Church are correct (as we believe they are), would you expect Her to behave differently?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

Or before you answer: “To the Tradition of The Catholic Church” (another point often raised by laity), two things. First, this is the rule/canon for OTHERS - not for The Catholic Church. NO ONE is to subject the 2,875 points of The Catholic Church to Tradition, he is to simply accept such “with docility.” The Catholic Church insists that it CANNOT err (in some matters, under some conditions) - it is INFALLIBLE, and therefore, it is unaccountable. It is it’s reason for rejecting Sola Scriptura - it’s exempt from norming and thus from ANY norma normans. Now, YES, it holds every OTHER one accountable, and it does have a “rule/canon” for THEM. It’s just itself. “IF I determine that they agree with ME, then obviously they are right cuz I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right, so I’m right. And so if any doesn’t agree with me they are wrong; why can’t Protestants understand that?” For OTHERS (NOT itself) it has a rule/canon. Formally, it is as follows:
A) The Tradition of The Catholic Church as The Catholic Church alone chooses, defines and interprets: it is the corpus of what The Catholic Church affirms.
B) The Scripture NOT on any page or in words that can be read by all but in the heart of The Catholic Church as interpreted exclusively and solely by The Catholic Church so as to agree with The Catholic Church.
C) The Magisterium of The Catholic Church alone as chosen by The Catholic Church among those pledged upon death to uphold the teachings and claims of The Catholic Church as well as their own views, rulings, interpretations, and arbitrations.
These three INSEPARATELY for ONE rule/canon, one “stream” (as my Catholic teachers put it), so that each must agree with the others. So if the Magisterium of The Catholic Church says something, Scripture MUST be interpreted to agree with that - even if such must be by words nowhere existing in Scripture since Scripture is required to agree with the Magisterium of The Catholic Church (God required to agree with The Catholic Church?). But, as ALL admit, this is just SELF. This is why The Catholic Church rejects this as a rule/canon for SELF - it would just be a perfect circle of self authentication, entirely worthless as a rule for SELF (self would just be looking in the mirror - EVERYONE is right if THAT rule is used). BUT, it argue it is valid in examining OTHERS (which it DOES hold as accountable - just not itself). Itself, however is infallible and thus exempt from accountablity.

.

We Catholics propose to have a better norma normans than Sola Scriptura.

That is Sacred Tradition of which I believe Sacred Scripture is a subset.

While this is a common apologetic among some Catholic laity, it’s a rubric The Catholic Church rightly rejects. Self agreeing with self is never an indication that self is correct. Heck, I agree with me ERGO you insist that I’m correct? I doubt it. I suspect you too reject your own argument.

1. It’s the RCC alone that determines what Tradition is:

**“It is the Authoritative Voice of The Catholic Church which determines what is to be accepted and rejected as Tradition.” **The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151

1. It’s the RCC itself alone that determines the meaning of this Tradition it itself alone chose.

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the [Catholic] Church alone. This means that the task of interpretion has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome." Catholic Catechism # 85

“Tradition” simply is whatever The Catholic Church says it is and means whatever The Catholic Church says it means. It’s just SELF. Do you actually believe that that is the most sound rule/canon for whether the same self is correct?

If a defendant were arrested and accused of murdering his little girl, would you uphold that that his own views about his own self is the most sound rule/canon for the evaluation of his guilt or innocence? OBVIOUSLY, self tends to agree with self. It is entirely irrelevant to whether that one is correct.

.

 

[Des]

No.

I accept that the author is.

So basically you accept that God prevented the Writers from teaching error yet God can’t do this within the Church as well or it’s against your rules of norming.

I find that line of reasoning extremely illogical. And you accept these writings are inspired because of why exactly?

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.

It’s irrelevant whether I believe the Bible is inspired or not since my question is why you insist the Authors of the Bible are exempt from being accountable. There is no difference between what we do that you dislike and what you do with the Writers of the Bible no matter how much you try and spin it.

But you seem to be missing the point. A rule/canon need not be inerrant to be a sound rule.

It does if you don’t want man’s fallible opinions interjected into these rules/canons. To say that this is truth when it ‘always’ comes to canon is a joke at best or you’ll have laws like abortion overturned in a matter of years then changed back. It’s very flimsy and silly. How about the contraception ban when you guys decided it was ok. What’s unbelievable is how you are so blind to see the danger of this in itself when the back and forth changes of doctrines in the circles of protestantism are there for all to see.

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.

I’ve already refuted this earlier in this thread and you seemed to brush it off with your usual rhetoric.

Actually, I reject the rubric you and the other Catholics are defending: That a defendant should just exempt himself exclusively from accountability, 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.”

If the faithful didn’t see the Apostles who happened to write to the early Church as not being held accountable to their teachings, then your Bible wouldn’t exist today. It exists ONLY because they were infallible on their own and any pieces of writing of theirs that was proven legit, was deemed inspired. Prove to me that this was not the case.

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).

And the Westboro Baptist Church and other cults like theirs come to mind on the dangers of your Bible alone doctrine.

 

[kepha1]

AmericanJosiah is saying that Jesus is unaccountable, because to him, Jesus is not with or in the Church, and the Apostles, who had no successors, were the only ones commissioned to “preach the Gospel to all nations”, because the Church was never commissioned to do anything because the Bible has everything in it. AmericanJosiah has declared that Jesus meant, “write a bible, and submit it to all nations…”

Therefore the Apostles went to all nations, and since Jesus is still with them as He promised, they must be alive somewhere on earth.

This debate is insane.

 

[paul_c]

I agree with you. This debate is insane. Its fairly obvious to me that American Josiah seperated himself for the church for whatever reason and is now trying to justify his decision by making all kinds of absurd and unsupported claims about the church like:

• The church was never told anything or promised anything by Christ
• The church only rejects sola scriptura because it doesn’t want to be held accountable
• The church hides in darkness
• The church is only accountable to itself
• The church acts like a cult

His main issue is in fact obvious: He denies the Church’s infallible teaching authority, prefering his own interpretation of scripture.

I have spent a few weeks now trying to get him to understand that:
a) His thesis that Sola Scirputre is the norma norman of theological thought is invalid because it fails the first test of a true norma norman: it is not reproducable as evidenced by the vast disparity in doctrine amoung sola scriptura advocating Protestant denominations,
b) that his real issue is his denial of Catholic Authority.

He is too blinded or too committed to his thesis right now to see the truth so these apologetics need to be saved for another day when he is more receptive.

 

[paul_c]

American Josiah,
In reflecting on my last post, I think I may have been uncharitable toward you. I know you are really struggling with CCc #87: Let’s reflect on the section a bit:

**
III. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HERITAGE OF FAITH **

**The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church **
84 The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei),contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. “By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.”

The Magisterium of the Church

85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

The dogmas of the faith

88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

89 There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.

90 The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ. “In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith.”

You see, the Church passes down what it has been taught (Tradition AND scripture) and is a servant to those teachings. It can not alter the deposit of faith so that is its Norma norman. So you are half right. Scripture is part of the norma norman, but not all of it. It is with Sacred Tradition that the scripture can be understood as it was intended. That is what is lost by those that separate themselves from the church. The reason for CCC 87, isn’t to force people to blindly agree to the faith but merely an acknowledgement that those that are truly Catholic will believe in the mission and fidelity of the Church and accept its truths in their daily lives.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I know you are really struggling with CCc #87:

NEITHER of us are “struggling” with it at all.

I’m supporting accountability for teachers of doctrine.
You are, too. For ALL - except one.
You are supporting that one may exempt self from accountability if that one is exclusively The Catholic Church for The Catholic Church. It is the most sound epistemology for the defendant to simply excuse self from accountablity and, in substitution, simply require that all accept with docility whatever self alone as correct.
As such, you are being an apologist for the Catholic position.

IF you embraced accountability, IF you embraced the divine warning about false prophets and the accountability that warning requires, IF you agreed with the praise of Jesus in contradiction of the requirement of The Catholic Church, then we’d agree that all teachers are accountable - including The Catholic Church, and we’d be discussing what is the most sound rule/canon for such - what is MOST outside, above and beyond all parties (including The Catholic Church), what is most knowable to all and alterable by none, what is most embraced historically and ecumenically. OBVIOUSLY, that is not simply it’s own views and its own interpretations - so The Catholic Church rejects that as a norm for its own teachings (as it must - or it has embraced a rubric that all are correct if each agrees with itself). It all comes down to accountability. THAT is what norming embraces, THAT is what The Catholic Church rejects (but only for it itself alone, exclusively).

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

absurd and unsupported claims about the church like:

• The church was never told anything or promised anything by Christ
• The church only rejects sola scriptura because it doesn’t want to be held accountable
• The church is only accountable to itself

His main issue is in fact obvious: He denies the Church’s infallible teaching authority, prefering his own interpretation of scripture.

No.

1. I don’t prefer my own interpretation, I AGREE with you - self appointing self as the sole authoritative interpreter, whose interpretation must just be accepted “with docility” is poor epistemology. But the only one that so insists is The Catholic Church (read your Catechism # 85). I fully agree with you, it’s just that your “problem” is exclusively and solely with The Catholic Church.
2. This thread (in part) is about the embraced rule/canon in norming. The Catholics here have well embraced and are well expressing the Catholic apologetic. Norming doesn’t apply to The Catholic Church because it’s infallible, and thus unaccountable. Since it cannot be wrong (in certain things, under certain conditions), accountability (and the resulting norming) is moot in the singular, exclusive, sole case of The Catholic Church. The defense of that IS the Catholic reason for exempting itself from norming and rejecting any norma normans for its own doctrines. Read what the Catholics here have said. Read your Catechism # 87.

his real issue is his denial of Catholic Authority.

No. As I’ve said MANY times in this thread, I do not in any sense deny the authority of Catholic Christians to teach (or Christians registered in congregations that legally belong to any other denomination). THAT is not the issue here. The issue is: are they accountable for what they teach? It is the most sound epistemology for one to simply exempt one (if that one is self exclusively) from accountability and norming, circumventing the issue of correctness, and in its place simply demanding that all accept with docility that that one is correct? Catholics here have insisted that IS the most sound approach to determining truth - but only if the one excluding self from the question is The Catholic Church alone.

.

 

[Tomster]

American Josiah,
In reflecting on my last post, I think I may have been uncharitable toward you. I know you are really struggling with CCc #87: Let’s reflect on the section a bit:

You see, the Church passes down what it has been taught (Tradition AND scripture) and is a servant to those teachings. It can not alter the deposit of faith so that is its Norma norman. So you are half right. Scripture is part of the norma norman, but not all of it. It is with Sacred Tradition that the scripture can be understood as it was intended. That is what is lost by those that separate themselves from the church. The reason for CCC 87, isn’t to force people to blindly agree to the faith but merely an acknowledgement that those that are truly Catholic will believe in the mission and fidelity of the Church and accept its truths in their daily lives.

paul c.,

If I may? I think one of the things A.J. fails to understand is the all important temporal mission of the Holy Spirit.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I think one of the things A.J. fails to understand is the all important temporal mission of the Holy Spirit.

I believe The Holy Spirit guides us.

However, there is NOTHING to suggest that He actually does not, but rather exclusively guides a specific institutional, geopolitical/legal, organizational, intercongregational entity - a denomination. And thus, that He only guides The Catholic Church and it alone. I see NOTHING that so states, except for The Catholic Church alone about The Catholic Church alone - a claim of self for self.

And there’s NOTHING to suggest that since God guides, ERGO there must be infallible/unaccountable in their following. Such is not only nonsense but obviously unbiblical. God guided Adam and Eve, did they therefore infallibly follow Him? Did God regard them as unaccountable? God established the Hebrew Kingdom, choose several of the kings, and guided them. Did they all and always infallibly follow Him? Did God regard them as unaccountable? The premise here is unbiblical (and, obviously, illogical).

You are doing what Catholics must: TRY to find some way to justify The Catholic Church alone exempting The Catholic Church alone from accountability and thus norming. THAT is the fundamental question: Are teachers accountable for what they teach, especially as doctrine? Was God correct to warn us all about false teachers (not exempting The Catholic Church)? Was Jesus correct to praise the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing them, for arbitrating the issue and for finding them false? Or is The Catholic Church correct and the most sound epistemology to determine correctness is for the teacher himself to exempt himself exclusively from the issue, circumvent norming, and replace that with the demand that all just accept with docility that he alone is correct?

.

 

[paul_c]

No.

1. I don’t prefer my own interpretation, I AGREE with you - self appointing self as the sole authoritative interpreter, whose interpretation must just be accepted “with docility” is poor epistemology. But the only one that so insists is The Catholic Church (read your Catechism # 85). I fully agree with you, it’s just that your “problem” is exclusively and solely with The Catholic Church.
2. This thread (in part) is about the embraced rule/canon in norming. The Catholics here have well embraced and are well expressing the Catholic apologetic. Norming doesn’t apply to The Catholic Church because it’s infallible, and thus unaccountable. Since it cannot be wrong (in certain things, under certain conditions), accountability (and the resulting norming) is moot in the singular, exclusive, sole case of The Catholic Church. The defense of that IS the Catholic reason for exempting itself from norming and rejecting any norma normans for its own doctrines. Read what the Catholics here have said. Read your Catechism # 87.

No. As I’ve said MANY times in this thread, I do not in any sense deny the authority of Catholic Christians to teach (or Christians registered in congregations that legally belong to any other denomination). THAT is not the issue here. The issue is: are they accountable for what they teach? It is the most sound epistemology for one to simply exempt one (if that one is self exclusively) from accountability and norming, circumventing the issue of correctness, and in its place simply demanding that all accept with docility that that one is correct? Catholics here have insisted that IS the most sound approach to determining truth - but only if the one excluding self from the question is The Catholic Church alone.

.

Josiah,
You continually misrepresent what the Catholic church is about. I will assume this is due to ignorance and not to bad faith on your part. The Catholic Church was given a mission from Jesus to spead the gospel and administer the sacraments. It must do so as it has always done. The Pope is responsible for insuring that the he hands down faithfully the Gospel that was handed down to him. It is an awesome responsibility that is taken very seriously. AS Tomster points out, he has the power of the holy spirit supporting him. He also has his brother bishops to help him stay on track. Because of the power of the Holy spirit, Catholic Doctrine has never contradicted itself., through 266 popes and 2000 years. Had it done so, SATAN himself would have been quick to jump on the opportunity through his countless anti-Catholic minions. So to say that the Church has no accountability is to be completely ignorant of reality. And it is not exempt from norming. The norm is past catholic teachings going back in one continuous link to the apostles, each Pope norming against what he heard from the Pope before him.

You need to get past your anti-catholic hatred to be able to see the truth. And I know that you have denied hating Catholicism but you simply aren’t being honest with yourself and with us when you say that. Every non-biased reader can see that. After all, what reason do you have to distrust the Catholic Church? Why would it try to decieve you?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The Catholic Church was given a mission from Jesus to spead the gospel and administer the sacraments.

I realize you must try as you can to “justify” why it is the most sound epistemology for self alone to exempt self alone from accountability, substituting instead that self just requires all to accept whatever self alone says “with docility.” But let’s look at your continuing (and yes, very Catholic) apologetic.

1. Jesus never commission The Catholic Church to do anything. Come on… Yes, The Catholic Church alone says that The Catholic Church alone was so commission, but JESUS never said any such thing. Or any other. It’s just the claim of self alone for self alone.
2. A commission to do something is entirely unrelated to be infallible and unaccountable in such. Jesus commanded us to love one another even as He loves us. Does that commission mean that ergo we MUST be infallible in such, unaccountable regarding such? Did God tell Adam and Eve to not eat of the fruit of the tree in the garden? Did that mean ERGO they were infallible in that regard and God held them unaccountable in that? You have built your whole argument on a premise that is not only wholly illogical but very unbiblical.

It is an awesome responsibility that is taken very seriously.

I agree! And responsibility mandates accountability. The very thing The Catholic Church alone denies for The Catholic Church alone, replacing that with the demand of self alone for self alone that whatever self alone says just be accepted “with docility.”

The norm is past catholic teachings going back in one continuous link to the apostles

Again, you confusing the rule it uses for OTHERS (because all OTHERS are accountable!) with any rule it might have for itself (it has none, it argues it needs none - its infallible, incapable of error - people are not to norm it, people must just accept it exclusively with docility.

Even The Catholic Church rejects what you insist: that if self agrees with self then self is correct. By your rubric, everyone is correct since every teacher agrees with self.

The “Teachings of The Catholic Church” being the rule for the teachings of The Catholic Church is just self looking in the mirror, insisting that if self looks like self, self must be right. I find that quite absurd (and so does The Catholic Church). The reason why The Catholic Church uses the teaching of itself exclusively as the rule for OTHERS is that it insists that it’s right, therefore all other position are wrong (amazing, I know - but it’s the position of The Catholic Church, the same position it ridicules if any other does as it insists is the right thing to do).

And you are missing the reality that Tradition in The Catholic Church is simply whatever it currently says it is and means whatever it alone currently says it means. It’s just self.

what reason do you have to distrust the Catholic Church? Why would it try to decieve you?

I guess the same could be said of Jim Jones or Joseph Smith or John Calvin or Arius? I suspect that MOST Christian teachers are as The Catholic Church: absolutely sincere. But they can be sincerely wrong, don’t you agree? Newton had his ideas that he was completely sincere about, it’s just he was wrong at some points. You seem to be suggesting that if one’s heart is in the right place, ergo he alone is infallible/unaccountable. I find that absurd.

You are doing what Catholics must: TRY to find some way to justify The Catholic Church alone exempting The Catholic Church alone from accountability and thus norming. THAT is the fundamental question: Are teachers accountable for what they teach, especially as doctrine? Was God correct to warn us all about false teachers (not exempting The Catholic Church)? Was Jesus correct to praise the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing them, for arbitrating the issue and for finding them false? Or is The Catholic Church correct and the most sound epistemology to determine correctness is for a teacher to exempt himself exclusively from the issue, circumvent accountability, and replace that with the demand that all just accept whatever he alone says with docility?

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

 

[Tomster]

Josiah,
You continually misrepresent what the Catholic church is about. I will assume this is due to ignorance and not to bad faith on your part. The Catholic Church was given a mission from Jesus to spead the gospel and administer the sacraments. It must do so as it has always done. The Pope is responsible for insuring that the he hands down faithfully the Gospel that was handed down to him. It is an awesome responsibility that is taken very seriously. AS Tomster points out, he has the power of the holy spirit supporting him. He also has his brother bishops to help him stay on track. Because of the power of the Holy spirit, Catholic Doctrine has never contradicted itself., through 266 popes and 2000 years. Had it done so, SATAN himself would have been quick to jump on the opportunity through his countless anti-Catholic minions. So to say that the Church has no accountability is to be completely ignorant of reality. And it is not exempt from norming. The norm is past catholic teachings going back in one continuous link to the apostles, each Pope norming against what he heard from the Pope before him.

You need to get past your anti-catholic hatred to be able to see the truth. And I know that you have denied hating Catholicism but you simply aren’t being honest with yourself and with us when you say that. Every non-biased reader can see that. After all, what reason do you have to distrust the Catholic Church? Why would it try to decieve you?

paul c.,

If I may? Additonally, A.J. has no understanding of what “the Church” is. He is blinded by the Protestant dogma of private judgment. He is unaware of the theology of St. Paul regarding the Church and the Mystical Body of Christ. He is only concerned with using his own yardstick in trying to convince others. Last time I checked A.J.'S “NORMS” were still fallible which I am sure he will admit to.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

He is blinded by the Protestant dogma of private judgment.

Like Pual, it seems you have a “problem” with self designating self alone as the sole interpreter - then declaring self infallible/unaccountable for such. I understand and fully agree. Your problem, however, applies to only one: The Catholic Church. Read your Catechism # 85 and 87.

But it does get to the issue here: You seem to embrace accountability! I agree. But The Catholic Church exempts one from that - itself, exclusively. So, your insistance on accountability and rejection of self excluding self from such is an issue you have with just one: The Catholic Church.

He is unaware of the theology of St. Paul regarding the Church and the Mystical Body of Christ.

Oh, I entirely agree with it! I just dont’ accept the claim of The Catholic Church alone that Jesus founded The Catholic Church or promised or authorized The Catholic Church exclusively all the remarkable things it alone so claims for it alone. Nor do I agree that just because there is responsibility - ergo there is infalliblity/unaccountability for such, or that because God leads us all - ergo all must infallibly follow and God exempts all from accountability.

Last time I checked A.J.'S “NORM” were still fallible which I am sure he will admit to.

No. I agree with The Catholic Church that Scripture is inerrant.

.