P
- Status
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
.
paul c:
Continues in the next post…
.
paul c:
Josiah:
The model you are using fits a bit with Sola Scriptura but contradicts the position of The Catholic Church.
- Yes, the Rule is the LAW - not the views/opinions/position of the defendent.
- The defendent doesn’t arbitrate the correctness or uncorrectness of himself - according to the Rule of himself, moot because he himself alone exempts he himself alone from accountablity - declaring one (himself) to be incapable of incorrectness.
In civil societies, NO ONE is exempt from accountability. This is contrary to The Catholic Church that exempts one (exclusively) - itself. Which is why it rejects Sola Scriptura - it’s just moot in the exclusive case of just one - itself. It alone circumvents the entire issue of norming by alone declaring that self alone is infallible and thus unaccountable, incapable of error in official matters of faith and morals thus norming (along with its issue of the embraced rule/canon) is simply moot in the case of just one - self, exclusively. In civil society, a defendent may not simply declare one (himself) exempt from accountability and the process of norming.
In civil societies, the rule/canon is OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all parties. Even the Supreme Court and the President of the United States is under and accountable to the Law (written, knowable). IF The Catholic Church embraced any rule/canon for itself (and it doesn’t simply because it rejects accountability for itself exclusively - the issue is moot for itself alone), it would not permit any rule/canon outside of itself. How is this known? Becuase it DOES have a rule/canon/norma normans for ALL OTHERS (just not itself). And what is that? “The three-legged-stool” of 1) The Tradition as IT currently defines, chooses and interprets - essentially what it teaches PLUS 2) The Scripture NOT knowable and unalterable on any page or in any tome but “in the heart” of itself, as currently understood and interpreted by itself PLUS 3) the Magisgerium of itself, as chosen by itself, from those pledged to uphold all the teachings of itself - and the rulings, decisions, interpretations, arbitrations and thoughts of one, itself. These 3 inseparately form the rule/canon/norma normans for all OTHERS, but as is perfectly and undeniably obvious, it’s just self. So OTHERS are accountable for what THEY teach (just not itself) and the Rule is this, “Do they agree with me?” Do you know of any court in civil societies where the Defendent alone may declare himself alone infallible and thus unaccountable, incapable of wrong? And all OTHERS will be judged right or wrong NOT according to the Law but whether their thoughts, actions, words conform to those of the Defendent? Where the Defendent is the judge/jury and rule for himself - moot since the defendant declares that there is exclusively one who cannot be wrong - self?
you are treating the Catholic Church as the defendent, when it is not.
- I realize you are attempting to defend The Catholic Church’s exemption of one (itself) from accountability and thus norming. But, in so doing, your comparison to the Rule of Law and the Courts fails, which is the point of what I posted (and what you quoted).
- Yes, if The Catholic Church has a doctrine, it IS accountable. When it is under review, that makes it the “defendant” - using your comparison to civil law. What YOU want to do is embrace the Rule of Law (and the court system in arbitration according to it) but allow ONE defendent to just exempt himself from the entire issue, ONE defendent to just circumvent the whole thing because that one says, “I’m right, so when I’m right ergo I’m right, so I’m right - there’s no need for any norming since I’m right. Just accept that with docility.” That’s not how it works, my friend. Your comparison to the Rule of Law and how things “work” under it actually supports Sola Scriptura and undermines the Catholic position.
Josiah:
The reason that the law and the court are not infallible is that their authority and inspiration are from men. The Church is infallible (in areas of Faith and Morals only) because its authority and inspiration comes from God.
- Anything or anyone can CLAIM such. Studied any of the cults? Studied the LDS? But again, you are NOT offering an alternative process of norming - better or worse. You are not suggesting a better norma normans - better or worse. You are simply doing as The Catholic Church does - attempting to EXEMPT one (exclusively) from the entire subject, you are attempting to defend why self alone may exempt self alone from accountability, that one defendent may just declare himself immune from anything, right cuz he alone insists that he alone cannot be wrong.
Continues in the next post…
.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
.
Continuing the post above…
paul c:
And the church so referenced always applies to Christian people - not to any denominational, institutional organization, not the RCC, not the LDS (both self-claims for self alone not withstanding) or any other. The claim for The Catholic Church alone comes from one, The Catholic Church alone. Not Scripture. It never authorized it for anything, about anything. Scripture never promises it anything, about anything. Scripture never even mentions it. Now, you can take the word “church” every time it appears, capitolize it so as to imply in modern English grammar that a proper noun is being used, and insert any word you like - Methodist, Mormon, Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican - whatever, but YOU are stating that, Scripture is simply stating “church.”
Yes, the term “church” in the NT can apply to two things: The mystical union of believers or to local gatherings of such - in a given place and time (what in theology we call congregations). It NEVER is used for ANY denomination.
We all know that all these claims The Catholic Church makes for itself alone don’t come from Scripture. It never authorized it or promised it anything, concerning anything, for anything, anywhere. Not once. Ever. Undeniably.
Self is simply exempting self from accountablity. That’s NOT a better process of norming - it’s just circumventing the entire question for one: self, exclusively. It’s NOT a more sound rule/canon, it’s just one exempting one (self) form ANY rule or canon. It’s just self alone declaring that self alone is right ergo self is right, and that accountability is moot in the exclusive case of one: self. It has nothing to do with self being correct, it’s just self evading the issue.
I think true teachers welcome the light. They come into the light. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, who must demand that he alone be regarded as unaccountable, exempt from norming, right cuz he alone says he alone is, to be accept NOT because he has been found right but “with docility.” It is this insistance to NOT be accountable, to be rather accepted “with docility” that is the common ground among false teachers, I’ve found, and it is a dangerous epistemology.
Over and over, God warns us of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray - and never, NEVER, is The Catholic Church (or any other teacher or organization or denomination) excluded from that. In Revelation 2:2, Jesus PRAISES the Ephesians (laity, it seems) for doing the opposite of what The Catholic Church insists upon, He praises them for regarding teachers as accountable, for NOT permitting self alone to exempt self alone from such; He praises them for “testing” them; He praises them for finding (arbitrating) those teachers to be FALSE. What Jesus praised is what The Catholic Church forbids - but only and exclusively and solely for one - itself.
Thank you.
Pax
.
Continuing the post above…
paul c:
The church is mentioned, but NEVER is their any mention of The Catholic Church - and I know that, you know that, we all know that. Your attempt to capitolize it (thus implying in modern English grammar that a proper name is mentioned) is a nice try, but fails. The Catholic Church isn’t mentioned in Scripture ANY MORE than The Church of Jesus Chrsit of Latter - Day Saints or The Unitied Methodist Church are. Obviously. Undeniably.Josiah:
The Church is mentioned repeatedly in the Scripture.
And the church so referenced always applies to Christian people - not to any denominational, institutional organization, not the RCC, not the LDS (both self-claims for self alone not withstanding) or any other. The claim for The Catholic Church alone comes from one, The Catholic Church alone. Not Scripture. It never authorized it for anything, about anything. Scripture never promises it anything, about anything. Scripture never even mentions it. Now, you can take the word “church” every time it appears, capitolize it so as to imply in modern English grammar that a proper noun is being used, and insert any word you like - Methodist, Mormon, Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican - whatever, but YOU are stating that, Scripture is simply stating “church.”
I agree, NOT The Catholic Church.
Yes, the term “church” in the NT can apply to two things: The mystical union of believers or to local gatherings of such - in a given place and time (what in theology we call congregations). It NEVER is used for ANY denomination.
We all know that all these claims The Catholic Church makes for itself alone don’t come from Scripture. It never authorized it or promised it anything, concerning anything, for anything, anywhere. Not once. Ever. Undeniably.
Self is simply exempting self from accountablity. That’s NOT a better process of norming - it’s just circumventing the entire question for one: self, exclusively. It’s NOT a more sound rule/canon, it’s just one exempting one (self) form ANY rule or canon. It’s just self alone declaring that self alone is right ergo self is right, and that accountability is moot in the exclusive case of one: self. It has nothing to do with self being correct, it’s just self evading the issue.
I think true teachers welcome the light. They come into the light. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, who must demand that he alone be regarded as unaccountable, exempt from norming, right cuz he alone says he alone is, to be accept NOT because he has been found right but “with docility.” It is this insistance to NOT be accountable, to be rather accepted “with docility” that is the common ground among false teachers, I’ve found, and it is a dangerous epistemology.
Over and over, God warns us of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray - and never, NEVER, is The Catholic Church (or any other teacher or organization or denomination) excluded from that. In Revelation 2:2, Jesus PRAISES the Ephesians (laity, it seems) for doing the opposite of what The Catholic Church insists upon, He praises them for regarding teachers as accountable, for NOT permitting self alone to exempt self alone from such; He praises them for “testing” them; He praises them for finding (arbitrating) those teachers to be FALSE. What Jesus praised is what The Catholic Church forbids - but only and exclusively and solely for one - itself.
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
.
C
CWBetts
Guest
At the time, there was only one Church, and it was Catholic in doctrine and practice. So enough with your angry rants because you have some kind of obsessive hatred of Catholicism
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Josiah:
I think true teachers welcome the light. They come into the light. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, who must demand that he alone be regarded as unaccountable, exempt from norming, right cuz he alone says he alone is, to be accept NOT because he has been found right but “with docility.” It is this insistance to NOT be accountable, to be rather accepted “with docility” that is the common ground among false teachers, I’ve found, and it is a dangerous epistemology.
Over and over, God warns us of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray - and never, NEVER, is The Catholic Church (or any other teacher or organization or denomination) excluded from that. In Revelation 2:2, Jesus PRAISES the Ephesians (laity, it seems) for doing the opposite of what The Catholic Church insists upon, He praises them for regarding teachers as accountable, for NOT permitting self alone to exempt self alone from such; He praises them for “testing” them; He praises them for finding (arbitrating) those teachers to be FALSE. What Jesus praised is what The Catholic Church forbids - but only and exclusively and solely for one - itself.
Thank you.
Pax
.
- Josiah
At the time, there was only one Church, and it was Catholic in doctrine and practice. So enough with your angry rants because you have some kind of obsessive hatred of Catholicism
- Your non-reply and resorting to name calling only reveals your empty hand and desire not to discuss the issue.
- You continue to express the Catholic position, that it alone simply exempts it alone to the issue of norming/accountability and thus all aspects of it - including the embraced rule/canon/norma normans in such. But, again, self alone simply insisting that self alone is correct - and exempting self alone from accountability and norming - is NOT an alternative approach to norming (better or worse), it’s a circumvention of such by self alone for self alone. It has nothing whatsoever to do with self being correct, only that self demands that self be unaccountable for what self says and that all such simply be accepted “with docility.”
Pax
- Josiah
P
paul_c
Guest
Josiah,
You can’t change the truth by arguing long or arguing vigorously. Nor can you avoid the reality that the Bible can’t be the Norma Norman UNLESS everyone interprets it the same way. This is why sola scriptura fails. There must be an ultimate authority that can arbitrate between different interpretations.
So lets separate for a moment the discussion about who is the rightful authority to interpret scripture and go directly to you point. How can sola scripture be the norma norman as you suggest if people can interpret the same passages differently?
You can’t change the truth by arguing long or arguing vigorously. Nor can you avoid the reality that the Bible can’t be the Norma Norman UNLESS everyone interprets it the same way. This is why sola scriptura fails. There must be an ultimate authority that can arbitrate between different interpretations.
So lets separate for a moment the discussion about who is the rightful authority to interpret scripture and go directly to you point. How can sola scripture be the norma norman as you suggest if people can interpret the same passages differently?
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
… nor can you by simply leaving such without response.
… nor can you change that The Catholic Church has no alternative normative process for its’ teachings (better or worse) or an alternative norma normans for such (better or worse). It’s “issue” with Sola Scriptura is simply that it alone exempts it alone from accountability - and thus norming and all aspects of such (including the embraced rule/canon). It alone simply declares that it alone is infallible, incapable of being wrong - and thus unaccountable and exempt from norming and the issue of this thread. But friend, self alone simply excusing self alone from the entire question is NOT an alternative (much less better) approach to determining correctness - it’s an EVASION, CIRCUMVENTION of the issue - exclusively for one: self.
Absurd. By your apologetic, we’d have to abandon the Rule of Law in our society because not all 310,000,000 Amerians interprets every law in our land identically. By your approach, any American defendant may simply declare himself alone to be INCAPABLE of being wrong - and thus unaccountable for what he has done. Right cuz self alone declares that self alone is, all must accept it “with docility” and exempt that one exclusively from any normative process or any rule/canon.
And you continue to confuse the rule/canon/norma normans from the arbitive process.
It would be moot if each person simply declares each alone as infallible/unaccountable.
You continue to assume individual arbitration (which, as a Catholic, you must). I don’t agree with your extreme individualism.
You continue to confuse the rule with the arbitration in norming.
Again, The Catholic Church has no alternative process or rule - better or worse. What you are TRYING so hard to do is to justify what The Catholic Church (as well as all cults) does: self alone simply exempting self alone form the whole issue of norming and whether a teaching is correct; the whole issue is simply circumvented by self alone for self alone - and replaced with the requirement of self alone to accept whatever self alone says “with docility.” Self alone insists: “I’m right so when I say I’m right, ergo I’m right so I’m right - just accept whatever with docility, for since I’m right it’s moot to ask or inquire if I’m right, that’s question for everyone and everything else.”
.
I
Ignatius
Guest
You really need to ask about 5000 Protestants. Unfortunately, Protestantism is so confused that you will not find an authoritative definition. Some will say it means what it says (I.E. Bible Alone, Faith Alone) others will say it doesn’t mean what it says. Some will say it is an absolutely essential Doctrine, others just a doctrine, others that it is not a doctrine but just a teaching, and yet others that it is not a teaching but a paradigm.could someone explain to me these two things?
This lack of a consistant teaching authority is typical of the confusion in the multitude of Protestant denominations and clear evidence that the bundle of confusion that is Protestantism cannot be correct.
Christ founded a Church with the Authority to teach His Truth without confusion. This Teaching Authority can only be found in The Catholic Church, which rejects the false, man made Sola doctrines.
P
paul_c
Guest
C
CWBetts
Guest
I think you will have more luck teaching a turtle how to read…
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
.
paul c:
Continues in the next post…
.
paul c:
Josiah:
.
… nor can you by simply leaving such without response.
… nor can you change that The Catholic Church has no alternative normative process for its’ teachings (better or worse) or an alternative norma normans for such (better or worse). It’s “issue” with Sola Scriptura is simply that it alone exempts it alone from accountability - and thus norming and all aspects of such (including the embraced rule/canon). It alone simply declares that it alone is infallible, incapable of being wrong - and thus unaccountable and exempt from norming and the issue of this thread. But friend, self alone simply excusing self alone from the entire question is NOT an alternative (much less better) approach to determining correctness - it’s an EVASION, CIRCUMVENTION of the issue - exclusively for one: self.
.
The Catholic church is highly accountable, both to its 1Billion + members and ultimately to God.
- It is not accountable to its members, they are required by it to accept whatever it says “with docility.” Read your Catechism, # 87 for example.
- Sure, ULTIMATELY all are accountable to God. The LDS and all the cults say that they are accountable to God, too.
Josiah:
Absurd. By your apologetic, we’d have to abandon the Rule of Law in our society because not all 310,000,000 Amerians interprets every law in our land identically. By your approach, any American defendant may simply declare himself alone to be INCAPABLE of being wrong - and thus unaccountable for what he has done. Right cuz self alone declares that self alone is, all must accept it “with docility” and exempt that one exclusively from any normative process or any rule/canon.
And you continue to confuse the rule/canon/norma normans from the arbitive process.
.
No, the courts are responsible for interpreting the law, Just as the church is the responsible for interpreting scripture.
- The courts get their authority from the law - the constitution.
- The difference is, in your rubric, the defendant alone is the law as well as the judge, jury and court - all for self alone, moot since the defendant simply proclaims that he alone is incapable of being wrong. Friend, when a teaching of The Catholic Church is under review, it is not the Court - it is the Defendant. A defendant is accountable to the law - not himself, and the arbitration will be by the court - not himself (in fact, he’ll not even have a voice in the determination - the jury will).
Continues in the next post…
.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
.
Continuing the post above…
paul c:
Here is my public and often stated position regarding The Catholic Church. IF you are willing to say MORE positive things about The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (the denomination my congregation is affiliated with) then you are less “anti” than I am. If you are willing to say LESS positive things about The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod that I here say about The Catholic Church, then you are more “anti” than I am.
My view is that The Catholic Church is valid and held in very high esteem. I regard its ministers, ministries and Sacraments to all be valid. I regard all that it officially teaches to not be heretical in the sense of being contrary to Scripture and/or Tradition, indeed I overwhelmingly agree with it. I regard all Christians in it to be my full, unseparated, equal brothers and sisters in Christ. I pray daily for God’s richest blessings to its ministers, ministeries and Holy Father." Now, will you say MORE POSITIVE things about my congregations’ organization (The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod) and thus be less “anti” than I? OR will you not, in which case YOU are the more negative one?
Your resulting to name calling rather than addressing my point is telling. The reality is: The Catholic Church has no alternative normative process - better or worse. It has no alterantive rule/canon/norma normans (better or worse). It alone simply exempts it alone from the entire issue of whether it’s teachings are correct, replacing it with it alone declaring that it alone is infallible, incapable of error, and thus unaccountable - and its teachings are simply to be accepted “with docility.” (CCC 87, etc.). It simply EXEMPTS itself from the whole issue, it simply CIRCUMVENTS norming (and the embraced norma normans for such). It’s opposed to Sola Scriptura NOT becasue it has an alternative (better or worse) but because it alone simply exempts it alone form the whole issue of norming.
.
Continuing the post above…
paul c:
Your resulting in absurd name calling is sad, and perhaps reveals that you have no response to what I posted.Josiah:
.
Your hatred of the Catholic Church is palpable. You continue to call it a cult and you continue to assume it is trying to exempt itself from the scripture. Neither is correct. The Church has the role of teachign the gospel and providing the sacraments. That is its commission.
Here is my public and often stated position regarding The Catholic Church. IF you are willing to say MORE positive things about The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (the denomination my congregation is affiliated with) then you are less “anti” than I am. If you are willing to say LESS positive things about The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod that I here say about The Catholic Church, then you are more “anti” than I am.
My view is that The Catholic Church is valid and held in very high esteem. I regard its ministers, ministries and Sacraments to all be valid. I regard all that it officially teaches to not be heretical in the sense of being contrary to Scripture and/or Tradition, indeed I overwhelmingly agree with it. I regard all Christians in it to be my full, unseparated, equal brothers and sisters in Christ. I pray daily for God’s richest blessings to its ministers, ministeries and Holy Father." Now, will you say MORE POSITIVE things about my congregations’ organization (The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod) and thus be less “anti” than I? OR will you not, in which case YOU are the more negative one?
Your resulting to name calling rather than addressing my point is telling. The reality is: The Catholic Church has no alternative normative process - better or worse. It has no alterantive rule/canon/norma normans (better or worse). It alone simply exempts it alone from the entire issue of whether it’s teachings are correct, replacing it with it alone declaring that it alone is infallible, incapable of error, and thus unaccountable - and its teachings are simply to be accepted “with docility.” (CCC 87, etc.). It simply EXEMPTS itself from the whole issue, it simply CIRCUMVENTS norming (and the embraced norma normans for such). It’s opposed to Sola Scriptura NOT becasue it has an alternative (better or worse) but because it alone simply exempts it alone form the whole issue of norming.
.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Yet more anti-catholic garbage. You do realize that Luther reconciled himself with the Church on his deathbed, right?
P
paul_c
Guest
American, Josiah, You said this:
But one post earlier you said this:
If you truly believe “I regard all that it officially teaches to not be heretical in the sense of being contrary to Scripture and/or Tradition, indeed I overwhelmingly agree with it” , then we would not be having this discussion because you would accept the Church’s teachings against sola scriptura. In fact, scripture itself warns agains it
2Peter3: 15-16: 15 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
Look, my point to you is simple. Sola Scriptura does not work because anyone can make scripture say what they want it to say by cherry picking verses out of context. There has to be an authority that explains how scripture was meant to be understood. That authority is and has always been the Catholic Church. You are of course, free to choose a different authority, but you are betting that they are more credible than the Catholic Church, because it it the truth that matters, not our individual opinions.
."
But one post earlier you said this:
These to me are pretty contradictory statements.
If you truly believe “I regard all that it officially teaches to not be heretical in the sense of being contrary to Scripture and/or Tradition, indeed I overwhelmingly agree with it” , then we would not be having this discussion because you would accept the Church’s teachings against sola scriptura. In fact, scripture itself warns agains it
2Peter3: 15-16: 15 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
Look, my point to you is simple. Sola Scriptura does not work because anyone can make scripture say what they want it to say by cherry picking verses out of context. There has to be an authority that explains how scripture was meant to be understood. That authority is and has always been the Catholic Church. You are of course, free to choose a different authority, but you are betting that they are more credible than the Catholic Church, because it it the truth that matters, not our individual opinions.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
You failed to read what I said and what you quoted.
I did NOT say:
- I agree with everything The Catholic Church says.
- I regard The Catholic Church alone to be exempt from norming since it alone insists that it alone is.
But you continue to not engage in the issue. What is your alternative to using Scirpture as the norma normans in the evaluation of the correctness of Catholic teachings; what is MORE inerrant, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE knowable by all and alterable by none (INCLUDING the Catholic Church), MORE historically and ecumenically embraced as reliable by all parties (including but not limited to The Catholic Church)? The Catholic Church has no alternative (better or worse), it rejects Sola Scriptura NOT because it has a better alternative but because it rejects norming - for exclusively and only one: itself. It is norming of it’s teachings that it rejects, thus all aspects of such norming (including the embraced norma normans in such); It alone insists that it alone be simply accepted “with docility.”
Yes, CENTURIES before The Catholic Church did, said, decided, declared ANYTHING about Scriptures, they already were. They existed and would regarded as Scripture.
**
Continues in the next post…**
.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
.
… continuing from the post above
Pax
… continuing from the post above
- You continue to confuse the rule/canon with arbitration.
- It is very hard for you to work outside the Catholic box. Yes, I realize, in Catholicism, Scripture is “in the heart” of The Catholic Church - not on a page, in words, as a part of a tome (CCC 113, etc.) and it has no objective reality, the only reality is what The Catholic Church ALONE says it says (CCC 85 for example), so that Scripture simply is WHATEVER The Catholic Church alone currrently says it says. But you need to get out of that paradigm. Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture ON THE PAGE. You know, those words formed by black letters on a white page. It’s a whole other concept of Scripture than in the RCC. In Sola Scriptura, we’re talking about the WORDS - not what one person, teacher, denomination SAYS the words are or mean or should be.
- Again, you are confusing what a teacher says with the norming of such. You are assuming that if a teacher says Scripture means this - it must mean that. Norming - AGAIN - doesn’t assuming that any one teacher is exempt from accountability and MUST be right if he/she/it says he/she/it is. You can say that the Bible says Jesus was 15 feet tall or Mary had pink hair or Mary never once had sexual intercourse or whatever you like. Swell. But I reject that it MUST be so if YOU ALONE so say YOU ALONE can’t be wrong.
- At least you’ve dropped the “infallible.” Yeah
- Yes, AGAIN, there DOES need to be an arbitive process. That’s the second part of norming. And if the rules here permitted us to discuss that here, I would, but hijacking is a rule violation. But yes, as I’ve said over and over and over, there are TWO main parts to norming - the rule/canon and the arbitration according to it, the “measuring stick” (the literal meaning of the word “canon”) and the arbitration ("does the thing in review measure up to the measuring stick?).
- Ah, what you’ve done is make The Catholic Church the sole arbiter for the correctness of The Catholic Church. Will you respect that same rubric for me? I’m the sole arbiter for the correctness of me? A defendant is arrested for murder, do you wave the law, circumvent the courts, and just designate the defendant as the sole arbiter for the correctness of the self-same? I doubt it… But actually, it’s much worse than that. Because it’s NOT a case that The Catholic Chruch alone appoints The Catholic Church alone as the sole arbiter for the correctness of The Catholic Church alone - predeclaring that The Catholic Church alone CANNOT be wrong. Nope. The Catholic Church alone simply exempts itself alone from the whole question of whether it’s right. It rejects norming (well, for self alone - it embraces, indeed insists upon it, for every single other teacher, church, denomination, movement, person). “I’m right, so ergo I’m right when I say I’m right, so just accept whatever I alone say with docility - as God speaking; I don’t need no norming cuz I’m right.” CCC 87, etc., etc.
Pax
- Josiah
C
CWBetts
Guest
Unfortunately for you, the Lutheran Church has no connection with Jesus Christ. The INFALLIBLE Catholic Church does. Go preach your heresies elsewhere
P
paul_c
Guest
American Josiah,
You can’t use the Bible to decide whether Catholicism is the real religion. Catholics wrote the Bible so of course its in agreement with what the Church teaches. If you find otherwise, you are simply interpreting it incorrectly, which is just another example of why sola scriptura doesn’t work.
As for the Bible be unalterable. You do recognize that Martin Luther, who you now follow, admittedly altered the Bible, excising 7 books that he didn’t agree with and changing the wording of others to seemingly justify Faith alone.
I use the fullness of Church teachings, including papal documents, scripture, and the catechism for my understanding of salvation.
As for understanding that the Church is correct in its teachings, I look at continuity of doctrine and leadership through the Early Church fathers, back to the apostles to demonstrate that the Catholic Church teaches the full truth. The credibility of the Catholic Church is impeccable on these grounds. And I do beleive that they teach faith and morals infallibly. To think otherwise is to think that your opinion on selected doctrine has more validity than that tought by Christ’s chruch, a foolish and arrogant position to take.
You can’t use the Bible to decide whether Catholicism is the real religion. Catholics wrote the Bible so of course its in agreement with what the Church teaches. If you find otherwise, you are simply interpreting it incorrectly, which is just another example of why sola scriptura doesn’t work.
As for the Bible be unalterable. You do recognize that Martin Luther, who you now follow, admittedly altered the Bible, excising 7 books that he didn’t agree with and changing the wording of others to seemingly justify Faith alone.
I use the fullness of Church teachings, including papal documents, scripture, and the catechism for my understanding of salvation.
As for understanding that the Church is correct in its teachings, I look at continuity of doctrine and leadership through the Early Church fathers, back to the apostles to demonstrate that the Catholic Church teaches the full truth. The credibility of the Catholic Church is impeccable on these grounds. And I do beleive that they teach faith and morals infallibly. To think otherwise is to think that your opinion on selected doctrine has more validity than that tought by Christ’s chruch, a foolish and arrogant position to take.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
AGAIN, I realize you are simply giving the Catholic excuse, the Catholic apologetic that it rejects Sola Scripture because it alone rejects norming for itself alone, exclusively. It has no alternative norma normans that it insists is more inerrant, more inspired, more knowable by all and alterable by none, more embraced by all parties as reliable. No. It rejects Sola Scriptura because it rejects norming for itself. Rather, it insists that all just accept whatever it says “with docility.”
Moot, but absurd. There was no Catholic present when The Ten Commandments were written. Indeed, most of the Bible was written before even The Catholic Church claims it came into existence (without a shred of anything to substantiate that claim). And there is ZERO evidence that the NT penmen were all officially registered in congregations legally affiliated with The Catholic Church; indeed, in several cases, we don’t even know who those penmen were - much less where they held official registration or to what those congregations where legally affiliated.
You are not do subject the official teachings to norming, The Catholic Church requires that you exempt it itself alone from such and accept whatever it says “with docility.”
If you simply compare the teachings of The Catholic Church to the teachings of The Catholic Church then taht has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with whether said teachings are correct, only that they agree with themselves. You do know that the LDS’s official teachings are also in agreement with the LDS’s official teachings, so by your rubric, the LDS MUST be infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, whatever it says is what God says. And you must agree that I’m infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, exempt from norming, right cuz I just am because my views also agree with my views. Your rubric is moot and has NOTHING to do with correctness. Self looking in the mirror to see if self looks like self has nothing to do with self being correct. Obviously, Undeniably. Your “alternative” - even if allowed (and The Catholic Church does not permit it) is entirely moot to the issue.
You, being a good Catholic, are just doing as The Catholic Church requires of you - to just accept whatever it says “with docility.” CCC 87. But such has nothing to do with it being correct (studied any of the cults?), it is only exempting itself from the question. And rejecting anything that has to do with norming - including embracing Scripture as the rule in such (Sola Scriptura).
.
P
paul_c
Guest
Josiah,
why did you chose Lutheranism over Catholicism? Was it because it allowed you the freedom to decide what was true? But does it really? The Lutherans have doctrines to follow, Just as the Catholics do. In fact, many of them are the same.
You never address the fundamental weakness of your position. Do you know that? How do you address the point that personal interpretation of scripture necessarily yields different results because no two people see scripture the same way without an arbiter to create a common understanding.
You continually try to deflect this point by complaining that the Catholic Church claims this arbitration right. Try addressing the deficiency of your thesis an dthen we can discuss the arbitration question
why did you chose Lutheranism over Catholicism? Was it because it allowed you the freedom to decide what was true? But does it really? The Lutherans have doctrines to follow, Just as the Catholics do. In fact, many of them are the same.
You never address the fundamental weakness of your position. Do you know that? How do you address the point that personal interpretation of scripture necessarily yields different results because no two people see scripture the same way without an arbiter to create a common understanding.
You continually try to deflect this point by complaining that the Catholic Church claims this arbitration right. Try addressing the deficiency of your thesis an dthen we can discuss the arbitration question
- Status