Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

[Philthy]

1. Whether it is correct or not is actually moot to our discussion.

No it isnt.

Let’s say a policeman pulls you over…

and notes that you were driving 60 MPH. He directs your attention to a sign next to you, posted by the side of the road. It is a large, square, white sign with big, black numerals and letters. It proclaims: MAX SPEED LIMIT: 45 MPH." There it is. Knowable by all, alterable by none. It says what it says - and there’s nothing you are the friendly man in blue can do about that.

This analogy to Scripture fails miserably in your attempt to rationalize away why a discussion of the canon is always relevant to refuting sola scriptura. First off, is the sign OFFICIAL or did someone with no authority simply put it there??? Gosh, that didnt take long to return to the issue of the canon, did it?
Furthermore, even if we accepted the validity of the sign, and while most agree with what the sign says, many will disagree over what is meant by what the sign says. For example - the sign does not clearly indicate which road it applies to, which type of vehicles it applies to, which traffic direction it is meant to regulate, etc etc etc. Sorry - your logic is valid but the analogy is weak: we dont all agree that the sign is official nor do we agree what the sign says.

1. You seem to be evading the issue here. Do you embrace accountability?

I embrace accountability. But how accountability is practiced is variable.

Do you regard teachers of dogma as accountable for such?

Sort of, but not to me personally. And for the record, I think that ther is a level of accountability that is exercised among the bishops and cardinals of the Magisterium.

THAT is the fundamental issue

.
I dont think so. I think authority is actually the issue. You seem to think that you personally have the right to demand accountability. But by what authority do you claim the need or right to demand accountability? That would be an issue to discuss…

Do you agree with God as He repeatedly and sternly warned us about false teachers (never once exempting any - including The Catholic Church from that)?

What if I said, “No, I dont.” I disagree with what you believe the sign means by what it says. What would we do then?

those meetings AFFIRMED a list already embraced

Embraced by whom, exactly? When, exactly? With what authority, exactly?
I think you greatly underestimate the significance of that affirmation as settling the issue in a way that no mere general “embrace” would ever accomplish.

We all embrace this rule/canon as reliable.

First, please define what you mean by “we” and “all” in this statement.
And as far as a canon, Protestants and Catholics do not share a common canon. Perhaps you mean the NT canon, but that is awfully naive to think that an understanding of the NT is somehow distinct from an understanding of the OT. Our understanding of the OT affects our understanding of the NT - it changes what we understand what the sign means by what it says.

“I don’t need to norm this with any math or objective data because I alone am exempt from accountability for what I alone say, I’m right cuz I’m right so I’m right, so there - just accept it with docility.” Nope. I need to substantiate my position with the rule that is ABOVE, BEYOND, OUTSIDE of me. Knowable by all and alterable by none. Accepted as valid and reliable by all parties. I need to substantiate my position with THAT, norming it by the norm/rule/canon.

I understand your point, but to draw an anology between you, personally, reaching a scientific truth that CAN DEFINITIVELY and OBJECTIVELY BE KNOWN BY OTHERS THROUGH A MEANS OUTSIDE OF YOURSELF and the general Christian attempting to know the definitive truth of what is meant by “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you” or any of the IMPOSSIBLY confusing terms used in Scripture, is simply not valid. Scientific truth can be known by all who can “do the math” - the same is not true for spiritual truths derived from a reading of Scripture.

Blessings!

 

[LionHeart777]

The issue here is this: Jesus praised Christians for holding teachers as accountable - and even more, for testing them, arbitrating their correctness, and proclaiming them “false.” Read your Catechism # 87.

AmericanJosiah,

In your opinion, how did the Ephesian Christians arbitrate their correctness (the false teachers.)?

 

[paul_c]

We aren’t told (so your theory is personal speculation), but you seem to have missed the point again. The Ephesian Christians held those teachers as ACCOUNTABLE. They tested them. They proclaimed them “false” (not “teaching contrary to the 2,875 points of the official Catholic Catechism”).

Do you regard teachers as accountable or not? Do you think God’s stern and bold and frequent warning about false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astry - never exempting The Catholic Church from such - is to be heeded or not? Do you think Jesus’ praise of the Ephesian Christians for doing what The Catholic Church forbids was right or wrong of Him? Do you hold teachers accountable or not? If you do - then they are. All of them. The Catholic Church no less or no more than any other, and you reject that The Catholic Church is exempt from norming because it’s infallible, incapable of error in these matters, and thus unaccountable and simply to be accepted with docility. And if you hold that teachers are NOT accountable, then they are not - including Martin Luther or Joseph Smith or me or you. Which is it?

No, you are coming dangerously close to suggesting what The Catholic Church rejects; that if self alone agrees with self alone, then self alone is infallible, incapable of error, exempt from norming, and whatever that self says must be accepted with docility. Friend, just about every teacher agrees with AT LEAST self. It indicates NOTHING vis-a-vis the correctness of that self same teacher. You know that. The Catholic Church knows that. The issue here is this: Jesus praised Christians for holding teachers as accountable - and even more, for testing them, arbitrating their correctness, and proclaiming them “false.” Read your Catechism # 87.

.

you are being ridiculous

 

[Tomster]

you are being ridiculous

Indeed, he is!

What our esteemed adversary fails to understand is that Christ is to be trusted and dreaded because He steps in palpably, visibly, into the life of His followers, not merely as a living and life giving ideal and principle, as a power of grace, but as one who rewards and punishes, helps the well meaning, and frightens the faithless. It is easy to see how this power of executive adds considerably to the reality of the grace of the Incarnation, and how it gives the Christian mind a very practical, a very positive turn. Nothing could my meaning clearer than the recitation of specific biblical texts.

The first passage occurs in connection with the excommunication of the incestuous man at Corinth:

“I indeed absent in body, but present in Spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him that hath so done. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ. To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 5:3-5).

Then there is the profession of his great powers as an Apostle of Christ in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians:

“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty to God unto the pulling down of fortifications, destroying counsels. And every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God and bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ; and having in readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience shall be fullfilled. See the things that are according to outward appearance. If any man trust to himself, that he is Christ’s, let him think this again with himself, that as he is Christ’s, so are we also. For if also I should boast somewhat more of our power, which the Lord hath given us unto edification, and not for your destruction; I should not be ashamed” (2 Corinthians 10: 4-9).

Then there is St. Paul’s menace to the same Corinthians, in this Epistle, to make them feel the power of Christ, in spite of the apparent weakness of Christ, unless they change their conduct:

“Do you seek a proof of Christ that speaketh in me, who towards you is not weak, but is mighty in you? For although he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we are also weak in him: but we shall live with him by the power of God towards you. Try your own selves if you be in the faith; prove ye yourselves. Know you not your own selves, that Christ Jesus is in you, unless perhaps you be reprobates? But I trust that you shall know that we are not reprobates. Now we pray God, that you may do no evil, not that we may appear approved, but you may do that which is good, and that we may be as reprobates” (2 Corinthians 13: 3-8).

The first and second passage just quoted are easily understood. The third passage is of a typical Pauline style, and a short commentary will not be amiss. St. Paul evidently was not satisfied with his dear Corinthians.

“Do you seek proof of Christ that speaketh in me who towards you is weak, but is mighty in you?” (2 Corinthians 13:3).

Apparently they were under the impression, that, in vulgar parlance, his bark was worse than his bite.

“Therefore I write these things being absent, that, being present, I may not deal more severely, according to the power which the Lord has given me unto edification, and not unto destruction” (2 Corinthians 10:10).

St. Paul gives them a warning. He bids them not to be deceived by the apparent weakness of Christ the crucified and of His poor apostle. For behind that weakness there is the tremendous power of His resurrection. That power Christ means to apply, both immediately, and mediately through His apostle. But there is one condition for the execution of this power. It is put into motion as a chastisement for those only who are Christ’s. If a man is not Christ’s, if he has been cut away from Christ, the Son of God disdains to sho His power towards him. Such a man is a reprobate and the worst thing that could happen to a Christian is this, that he has become such that Christ’s power does not reach him anymore, that Christ is powerless towards him. So if the exercise of power with which St. Paul threatens the Corinthians were to remain without its castigating, its visible effects, it would be a terrible revelation of their spiritual state, it would show the fact that they are reprobates. Then comes the wonderful turn of St. Paul’s heart: he is ready to risk his own reputation, to see his power without its effect, to appear a reprobate himself, rather than to see his children suffer from the effects of his excommunication.

cont.

 

[Tomster]

“Now we pray God, that you may do no evil, not that we may appear approved, but that you may do that which is good, and that we may be as reprobates” (2 Corinthians 10:7).

It is evident that St. Paul had a clear intuition of Christ’s executive power in redressing evil among the faithful themselves.

Christ’s power in helping the Apostle and in fact every Christian in the hard struggle against evil is of course part of the general trust in God. Christ is God, and we trust Him to help us.

“Let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God, believe also in me” (St. John 14:1).

It could not be said that practical faith in the power of the Son of God is a specifically Christian thing, except in the sense that we give to the Incarnate Son of God the same confidence as we give the Father. No man knew better that St. Paul how to rely on the power of Christ, in his manifold temptations.

"And he said to me: my grace is sufficient for thee: for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.

For which cause I please myself in my infirmities, in reproaches, in necessitiies, in persecutuions, in distresses, for Christ. For when I am weak, then am I powerful" (2 Corinthians 12:9-10).

But the power of Christ mentioned in the texts quoted above is something more specifically Christian. It is based on the personal relation of the Son of God with the regenerate soul. Its efficacy depends on man’s intimacy with Christ.

For one that is a “reprobate” will not be attained by that specific power of Jesus. It also differs from the power of judgment, as judgment embraces the good and the bad, the Christian and the infidel, the living and the dead. It is essentially Christ’s power over his own mystical body the Church, to keep it pure and healthy.

The act of excommunication on St. Paul’s part was only one manifestation, I might almost say, a negative manifestation, of a power that is a most positive, a most life giving thing, Christ’s unceasing energy in building up His own mystical Body, the Church. 'For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the Church: Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones" (Ephesians 5:29-30).

This practical faith in Christ’s unceasing activity in His Church to buils it up, to purify it, is an intregal part of the Christian mind.

There is a distinction between the Christian mind and Christian dogma. The Christian mind is the practice, the life philosophy of the more abstract Christian dogma. Now the dogmatic part of the doctrine of the Church has received great attention in all times. The heresies, generally known as Protestantism, have forced on Catholics the necessity of stating, and re-stating, with growing emphasis and clearness, the claims of the Church, of the Papacy, of the Hierarchy. It has become the best known portion of our whole theology. But it would be the greatest mistake to think that the aforesaid doctrines are mainly controversial, are mainly a protection against the power of error. The doctrines of the Church of Christ have a most practical side for our individual spiritual life: they make the greatest appeal possible to the Christian mind, because it is there we find the power of Christ applied with unfailing efficacy, NAY severity.

cont.

 

[Tomster]

'I am the true vine; and my Father is the husbandman.

Every branch in me, that beareth not fruit, he will take away; and every one that beareth fruit, he will purge it, that it may bring forth more fruit." (John 15: 1-2).

His great work is the sanctification of the individual souls that are the mystical members of Hos body; and to that work He brings an infinitude of power, but a power that is something sui generis, a power of vitalisation and secretion that is a living organism carried to infinite potentiality. It is a power that is both beneficent and unsparing, as all life is. Of this power we have a divinely inspired account in the message delivered by St. John to the seven churches, in the first three chapters of the Apocalypse. There Christ strikes hard in the very souls of His people.

His speech is “a sharp two-edged sword” that comes out of His mouth. He kills with death the children of a false prophetess (chapter 2). He vomits out from His mouth the angel of the Church of Laodicea (chapter 3).

But I must ask our esteemed adversary to meditate for himself on that most wonderful section of our inspired Books. Then he will see the Son of God in a new role, the role executive sanctity. It is Christ’s role in His Church. The power He exercises is not that power of help on which we trust in all difficulties: it is, I might also say, immanent in the body of the Church, not external to it. Christ stands “in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks” (Apocalypse 1:13).

cont.

 

[Tomster]

He moves them about with a strong arm and He fights against His own careless disciples with the sword of His mouth (Apoc. 2:16).

It is no small part of the Christian mind to have a keen realisation of that work of executive sanctity which the Son of God carries out with unceasing activity and unsurpassable power iside His Church. He Himself being the life that energises everything and orders everything. and He Himself doing the work of assimilation and secretion.

There is nothing we ought to dread more than the misfortune of putting obstacles to the glorious flow of life in the body of the Church through personal infidelity to grace, or through reluctance in conforming with the mind of the Church. Nothing punishes like stunting a life process, and there is not a life that is more vigorous than Christ in His Church.

“I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot, I would thou wert cold or hot. But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth” (Apoc. 3:15-16).

Our zeal and fervor to do the works of Christ, if we have the Christian mind, is more than an ordinary generosity in the service of God. It is a specific love of the life of Christ in us, and in the Church, with its necessary counterpart of fear least we should at any time put obstacles to that glorious, but unsparing life. We are in dread need of the two-edged sword, lest it cut us off like putrid members. As we love the life, so also we dread the life, which is Christ.

Here I find an opprotunity of writing down one of St. Paul’s most powerful pasages, setting forth that absolute reciprocity between our life and Christ’s life, a reciprocity founded on the larger mystery of Christ’s indwelling power in us and in His Church.

“A faithful saying: for if we be dead with him, we shall live also with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us. If we believe not, He continueth faithful, He cannot deny himself” (2 Timothy 2:11-14).

The doctrine of the Church, which Christ builds on Peter, the Rock, is of course a specifically Christian doctrine. It is so intimately connected with the Incarnation that the Church without the Incarnation is not even thinkable. For the Church is essentially and intrinsically the body of Christ, of God Incarnate. “And he subjected all things under his feet and hath made him head over all the Church. Which is his body and the fullness of him who is filled all in all” (Ephesians 1: 22-23).

cont.

 

[Tomster]

But as the Christian mind takes a practical view of the more abstract dogma, I consider that a realisation of the activities of the Son of God inside His Church, activities of mercy and severity, is the practical view corresponding to the great dogma. Our obedience to the Church, our love for her, our daring, and our enterprise in her cause, as well as our humble service in the lower grades of usefulness, will spring from such a conviction, as from their natural fountainhead.

“But doing the truth in charity, we may in all things grow up in him who is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly joined together, by whay every joint supplieth, according to the operation of in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in charity” (Ephesians 4:15-16).

What I said of the Church also applies to the doctrine of the Eucharist, which is connected inseparably with the doctrine of the Church. It is a dogma that is of course specifically Christian in tenor. It is as original as the Incarnation itself. It is part of the mystery of the Son of God.

The attitude of the Christian mind, as something different from the intellectual acceptance of the dogma, and also as something different from the actual partaking of the sacrament, is less easily described on account of the vastness of the object.

We may view the Eucharist and make it a most real activity in so many different ways, and the saint is still to be born who has applied to his soul all the treasures which are hidden therein. The Eucharist is the life of Christ, the death of Christ, the resurrection of Christ; it is the companionship of Christ; it is the blessing of Christ, it is the triumph of Christ, as well as his sweet humility.

Our minds see all those things in the Eucharist and many more. He is food and drink, He is priest and victim, He is our introduction to God, and our badge of brotherhood with man in this one and indivisible thing, the Eucharist.

It is in the Eucharist that we have a practical demonstration of the vital possibilities of the things of the Incarnation.

cont.

 

[Tomster]

you are being ridiculous

Yes, paul c., he is being ridiculous to say the least.

What our esteemed adversary seems to be focused on is his own, personal, fallible “norming” process and a claim that his process is the correct process, the one process everyone must believe.

Two thousand years of Christian theology are to be relagated to the scrap heap of history all because of one person’s personal “norming” process. A true Protestant is he!

He is a legend in his own mind.

What our esteemed adversary is competely oblivious to is the fact that he is not the one who has the authority to promulgate any rules or decide anything authoritatively.

It is the Risen Christ who IS the norm!

It is the Majestic Christ who IS the norm!

It is the Reigning Christ, the Alpha and the Omega, who IS the norm!

And it is His Will, through His Church, the only Church, the Catholic Church, His Mystical Body, that Body where the gates of hell shall not prevail, where the absolute fullness of Truth can be found.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Let’s say a policeman pulls you over and notes that you were driving 60 MPH. He directs your attention to a sign next to you, posted by the side of the road. It is a large, square, white sign with big, black numerals and letters. It proclaims: MAX SPEED LIMIT: 45 MPH." There it is. Knowable by all, alterable by none. It says what it says - and there’s nothing you are the friendly man in blue can do about that.

.

First off, is the sign OFFICIAL or did someone with no authority simply put it there???

I think you are working overtime to evade the obvious… You and the policeman are accountable to the Rule of Law - which is knowable by all and alterable by none, above and beyond both you and the policeman. It serves as the rule/canon for the issue.

Yes, I think it would be accepted that the sign was placed there. Whether the guys or girls who dug the hole and inserting the pole, attaching the sign were infallible/unaccountable is a bit laughable. Let’s see. You get pulled over. The policeman directs your attention to the big, white, square sign with big, bold, black numerals and letters. You respond, “But sir - how do we KNOW who put up that sign, do you know their names? Were they infallible/unaccountable when they did that? Unless you can prove that, this sign - and the entire Rule of Law - are moot in the singular case of me alone, moot as well since I alone declare that I alone an INCAPABLE of driving wrongly and I am UNACCOUNTABLE for my driving because I alone so declare that I alone am. Good-bye. Have a nice day.” And off you drive. I’d be curious how your “logic” here would work for you. I’m curious what the policeman would say. How the crowd around you listening to your amazing “logic” would respond? What do you think?

Furthermore, even if we accepted the validity of the sign, and while most agree with what the sign says, many will disagree over what is meant by what the sign says.

Then it would need to be arbitrated ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF LAW. And friend, you would not be a participant in that arbitration. The defendant doesn’t arbitrate the issue.

Do you regard teachers of dogma as accountable for such?

.

Sort of

And for the record, I think that ther is a level of accountability that is exercised among the bishops and cardinals of the Magisterium.

So, The Catholic Church should be “accountable” to The Catholic Church. Or specifically, to the Magisterium of the self-same all pledged upon their lives to uphold the teachings nd claims of the self-same Catholic Church? So, if you are pulled over, you think that you should be accountable to you? What you think would be the rule and you would be the sole arbiter for whether you are correct, moot because you’ve already declared that you are INCAPABLE of being wrong? I hope you see the absurdity of putting the fox at the henhouse as the sole, infallable, unaccountable arbiter for the behavior of the fox - moot because the fox declares that the fox exclusively is INCAPABLE of being wrong in his behavior - and he has pledged upon his very soul to always support the infallibility and correctness of the fox (exclusively).

You seem to think that you personally have the right to demand accountability. But by what authority do you claim the need or right to demand accountability?

**Then you need to decide. Do you think teachers are accountable for what they teach as doctrine or not? ** Martin Luther and Pope Benedict, Joseph Smith and St. Augustine, Mary Baker Eddy and John Calvin, The Catholic Church and The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, The United Methodist Church (USA) and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? Are teachers accountable or not? Do you agree with God who repeatedly issued bold and stern warnings about false teachers (and never exempted The Catholic Church)? Do you agree Jesus was right to do as The Catholic Church forbids when He praised the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing them (norming), for arbitrating the issue and for declaring those teachers to be false?

The Catholic Church insists that ALL are accountable - right here, right now - and has a long, long history of testing them, arbitrating the issue, and for declaring teachers to be false or wrong, even for dispatching them to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke - so it consistently holds that all ARE accountable - it’s just that it alone makes one exemption to all this - itself. Exclusively. IT, it alone says, is infallible, incapable of error in this matter, and thus unaccountable - so instead, all are simply to accept whatever it alone says “with docility.”

Which is it? Do you accept that teachers are accountability for what they teach as doctrine or not? If you say yes, then we agree on that point. And, of couse, then The Catholic Church is accountable. And you have just embraced the requirement of norming for what it teaches. And obviously, The Catholic Church is correct when it repudiates the rubric that if self agrees with self alone then self is right, and rejects the rubric that if self alone arbitrates that self alone is correct, then it is infallible and unaccountable that that self alone MUST be correct. We need a better rule than whatever the self same so says - a rubric that if self agrees with self, then self is right. And we need a better arbiter than self appointing self exclusively, with self already pre-declaring that self CANNOT be wrong, making the whole arbitive process moot.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Tomster]

.

I think you are working overtime to evade the obvious… You and the policeman are accountable to the Rule of Law - which is knowable by all and alterable by none, above and beyond both you and the policeman. It serves as the rule/canon for the issue.

Yes, I think it would be accepted that the sign was placed there. Whether the guys or girls who dug the hole and inserting the pole, attaching the sign were infallible/unaccountable is a bit laughable. Let’s see. You get pulled over. The policeman directs your attention to the big, white, square sign with big, bold, black numerals and letters. You respond, “But sir - how do we KNOW who put up that sign, do you know their names? Were they infallible/unaccountable when they did that? Unless you can prove that, this sign - and the entire Rule of Law - are moot in the singular case of me alone, moot as well since I alone declare that I alone an INCAPABLE of driving wrongly and I am UNACCOUNTABLE for my driving because I alone so declare that I alone am. Good-bye. Have a nice day.” And off you drive. I’d be curious how your “logic” here would work for you.

Then it would need to be arbitrated ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF LAW. And friend, you would not be a participant in that arbitration. The defendant doesn’t arbitrate the issue.

So, The Catholic Church should be “accountable” to The Catholic Church. Or specifically, to the Magisterium of the self-same all pledged upon their lives to uphold the teachings nd claims of the self-same Catholic Church? So, if you are pulled over, you think that you should be accountable to you? What you think would be the rule and you would be the sole arbiter for whether you are correct, moot because you’ve already declared that you are INCAPABLE of being wrong? I hope you see the absurdity of putting the fox at the henhouse as the sole, infallable, unaccountable arbiter for the behavior of the fox - moot because the fox declares that the fox exclusively is INCAPABLE of being wrong in his behavior - and he has pledged upon his very soul to always support the infallibility and correctness of the fox (exclusively).

**Then you need to decide. Do you think teachers are accountable for what they teach as doctrine or not? ** Martin Luther and Pope Benedict, Joseph Smith and St. Augustine, Mary Baker Eddy and John Calvin, The Catholic Church and The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, The United Methodist Church (USA) and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? Are teachers accountable or not? Do you agree with God who repeatedly issued bold and stern warnings about false teachers (and never exempted The Catholic Church) or not? Do you agree Jesus was right to do as The Catholic Church forbids when He praised the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing them (norming), for arbitrating the issue and for declaring those teachers to be false or not?

The Catholic Church insists that ALL are accountable - right here, right now - and has a long, long history of testing them, arbitrating the issue, and for declaring teachers to be false or wrong, even for dispatching them to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke - so it consistently holds that all ARE accountable - it’s just that it alone makes one exemption to all this - itself. Exclusively. IT, it alone says, is infallible, incapable of error in this matter, and thus unaccountable - so instead, all are simply to accept whatever it alone says “with docility.”

Which is it? Do you accept that teachers are accountability for what they teach as doctrine or not? If you say yes, then we agree on that point. And, of couse, then The Catholic Church is accountable. And you have just embraced the requirement of norming for what it teaches. And obviously, The Catholic Church is correct when it repudiates the rubric that if self agrees with self alone then self is right, and rejects the rubric that if self alone arbitrates that self alone is correct, then it is infallible and unaccountable that that self alone MUST be correct. We need a better rule than whatever the self same so says - a rubric that if self agrees with self, then self is right. And we need a better arbiter than self appointing self exclusively, with self already pre-declaring that self CANNOT be wrong, making the whole arbitive process moot.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Please, you have been refuted. You are in no position to comment, authoritatively, on the authority of the Catholic Church.

It has been explained to you where the Catholic Church gets her authority.

You would do well to swallow your pride.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

It has been explained to you where the Catholic Church gets her authority.

Well, it has been claimed “from Scripture” although no one has yet to quote a single Scirpture that so much as mentions it - for anything, about anything, concerning anything, in any regard.

And no one has attempted to explain why the responsibility to teach (which The Catholic Chruch cannot show it has) carries with it infalliblity/unaccountability.

You would do well to swallow your pride.

So, self alone insisting for self alone: “I’m right, so I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right. I don’t need no norming cuz I’m right. So just forget about that for me alone and rather just accept whatever I alone say with docility cuz when I speak, God speaks.” Ah, THAT’S humility, according to you?

Look, you are doing as The Catholic Church does. And so you are being a good Catholic apologist. You have revealed why The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture. It’s NOT because it has an alternative (better or worse) for the norming of it’s doctrines - it doesn’t. It’s because it rejects accountability (for itself exclusively) - and thus norming and everything associated with it (including WHATEVER might serve as the rule/canon for such). It requires that we lay aside the whole issue vis-a-vis itself alone and exclusively (it insists on accountability for any and all others, however). Rather, we are simply to accept whatever it alone says “with docility.” It’s what you do. As it requires of you. I simply reject that that is a sound approach to determining whether that one is correct. My study of the LDS and the cults rather powerfully teaches me the absurity and danger of the rubric you are working so hard to defend.

**
IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident that God’s Truth will be revealed by the light. He welcomes accountability and norming. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from examination, reject any accountability and norming, push all that aside and instead insist that all just accept whatever he alone says “with docility.” Read your Catechism # 87.**

.

 

[paul_c]

Well, it has been claimed “from Scripture” although no one has yet to quote a single Scirpture that so much as mentions it - for anything, about anything, concerning anything, in any regard.

And no one has attempted to explain why the responsibility to teach (which The Catholic Chruch cannot show it has) carries with it infalliblity/unaccountability.

So, self alone insisting for self alone: “I’m right, so I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right. I don’t need no norming cuz I’m right. So just forget about that for me alone and rather just accept whatever I alone say with docility cuz when I speak, God speaks.” Ah, THAT’S humility, according to you?

Look, you are doing as The Catholic Church does. And so you are being a good Catholic apologist. You have revealed why The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture. It’s NOT because it has an alternative (better or worse) for the norming of it’s doctrines - it doesn’t. It’s because it rejects accountability (for itself exclusively) - and thus norming and everything associated with it (including WHATEVER might serve as the rule/canon for such). It requires that we lay aside the whole issue vis-a-vis itself alone and exclusively (it insists on accountability for any and all others, however). Rather, we are simply to accept whatever it alone says “with docility.” It’s what you do. As it requires of you. I simply reject that that is a sound approach to determining whether that one is correct. My study of the LDS and the cults rather powerfully teaches me the absurity and danger of the rubric you are working so hard to defend.

**
IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident that God’s Truth will be revealed by the light. He welcomes accountability and norming. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from examination, reject any accountability and norming, push all that aside and instead insist that all just accept whatever he alone says “with docility.” Read your Catechism # 87.**

.

The main problem with you Josiah, is you don’t take the time to really consider what people say to you. The Catholic Church’s authority does not come from scripture. It comes directly from Christ. This is discussed in Matthew 28: 18-20 as the great commission and validated through the New Testament, everytime “The Church” or : the way" is mentioned. But the actual authority predates the New Testament, which is afterall, a story of Christ and how his church grew.

As far as I am concerned this thread is way past being productive. We already know that sola Scriptura is invalid, because it is not reproduceable. You have not denied it. You have asked for alternatives, we told you that it is Catholic tradition. You won’t accept that because it is not the answer that you are so committed to and you hate the idea of God given authority that cant be found in a book, for some reason. God writes on the heart, not on the page. Open your heart to the truth and forget all the legalism. and we’re not asking you to accpet this all on blind faith. There are plenty of facts to support what we say. You are just not open to hearing them since you are so caught up on your self noming self mantra. So I’m signing off for now unless you add some new insight.

 

[Philthy]

AmericanJosiah:

I think you are working overtime to evade the obvious… You and the policeman are accountable to the Rule of Law - which is knowable by all and alterable by none, above and beyond both you and the policeman. It serves as the rule/canon for the issue.

Im not working overtime - the points I raised are valid and natural. Your allegation that the canon of Scripture is analogous to the Rule of Law is tenuous at best. The Rule of Law, like the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus are detailed, specific rule books. There is no such clarity in the NT. More importantly, they each have a hierarchy of authority behind them to determine the authoritative judicious application of those laws. The ultimate authority in our legal system being the Supreme Court. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church is a perfect analogy of such a necessary authority in matters pertaining to the faith. It is unworkable and naive to think that apart from a recognized, visible, tangable authority there will be any ability to truly know and observe the law.

Yes, I think it would be accepted that the sign was placed there. Whether the guys or girls who dug the hole and inserting the pole, attaching the sign were infallible/unaccountable is a bit laughable. Let’s see. You get pulled over. The policeman directs your attention to the big, white, square sign with big, bold, black numerals and letters. You respond, "But sir - how do we KNOW who put up that sign, do you know their names?

The only reason that the validity of the sign would go unquestioned is because of the recognizable, visible, tangible authority of our legal system. I riterate: the Magisterium of the Church serves the identical function. You are simply the radical who, while living in the country and benefiting from the law and legal system, prefer to say - “Hey, who made you boss? You’re not the boss of me!” At least that is how I see it…

So The Catholic Church should be “accountable” to The Catholic Church. Or specifically, to the Magisterium of the self-same all pledged upon their lives to uphold the teachings and claims of the self-same Catholic Church?

They are held accountable to the faithful by God, Scripture, and by the decisions of past Magisteria. Who would you like them to be held accountable by - you?

Then you need to decide. Do you think teachers are accountable for what they teach as doctrine or not?

Yes they are. The question is to whom are they accountable, and how exactly is their accountability accomplished. What is your proposal exactly?

We need a better rule than whatever the self same so says - a rubric that if self agrees with self, then self is right. And we need a better arbiter than self appointing self exclusively, with self already pre-declaring that self CANNOT be wrong, making the whole arbitive process moot.

It seems to me that you lack faith in God to lead them “to all truth” so that his Church will remain “the pillar and foundation of truth” and will not be overcome by Satan. Arbitration only happened among the apostles - just like in the CC. You, as a “younger member” do not seem to recognize your place in the Church. “Likewise, you younger members be subject to the presbyters and all of you, clothe yourselves in humility in your dealings with one another.” But perhaps I am wrong. I will let you explain how you think accountability should be functioning and how disputes should be resolved and how, exactly, you personally fit into that system.

Blessings!

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The Catholic Church’s authority does not come from scripture. It comes directly from Christ.

1. What does authority have to do with infalliblity?
2. If it comes from Christ, then quote Him. Where does He grant ANYTHING to The Catholic Church? In fact, where does He so much as mention The Catholic Church - about anything, for anything, concerning anything, in any regard or way?
3. You are continuing to do as you must: TRY to find some reason why the best rubric for determining if The Catholic Church is correct is for it alone to simply exempt it alone from the issue and substitute instead the requirement of it alone that whatever it alone says just be accepted “with docility.” Instead of addressing the issue of accountability and thus norming (and the required norma normans for such), you must get the issue off of accountability for exclusively one: The Catholic Church. And somehow justify that it is better for that one alone to insist that that one alone just be accepted “with docility” instead.

You have asked for alternatives, we told you that it is Catholic tradition.

This rule is rejected by The Catholic Church as a rule/canon for the doctrines of The Catholic Church. It rejects it because 1) It is not accountable - to anything and 2) It would be a perfect circle that it rejects as absurd: self agreeing with self has ZERO relevance to self being correct - as Catholic apologists agree. I agree with me - you aren’t arguing that THEREFORE I’m infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable and whatever I say MUST be accepted with docility, as Jesus speaking. You reject your own apologetic.

you hate the idea of God given authority

Not at all. Nor have I questioned that Catholics may teach. What I disagree with is that best way to determine the correctness of a teacher is for that teacher to simply exempt himself alone from accountibility and instead he alone declare that whatever he alone says just be accepted with docility. “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right, I don’t need no norming cuz I’m right - so there; just accept whatever I alone say with docility, as God Himself speaking” is an epistemology I don’t accept. It’s not authority I reject, it’s self exempting self from accountability. IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident that God’s Truth is revealed in the light. It is the false teacher that hides in the dark, must sheild his teaching from examination and accountability and norming, who must instead insist that whatever he alone says just be accepted with docility.

If you can find some support for the idea that a human teacher is beyond accountability if he alone says so - then share it. If you can find some rationale for ignoring all God’s stern and bold warnings about false teachers (if that teacher exclusively is The Catholic Church), if you can find some reason why Jesus was wrong to praise the Ephesian Christians for NOT accepting what they were told with docility but rather regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for arbitrating the issue and for declaring them to be false - then share it.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Your allegation that the canon of Scripture is analogous to the Rule of Law is tenuous at best.

A rule is a rule. No, it’s not equal because Scripture is inerrant and God inscripturated. The Law is errant and altogether human. But for some reason, you see the appropriateness of accountability and the soundness of a rule in one situation, but entirely denounce it in the other (but only for The Catholic Church exclusively). In this, you are being a good Catholic.

The ultimate authority in our legal system being the Supreme Court.

And what is the rule/canon for The Supreme Court? Yup, the Rule of Law. It is to arbitate cases according to that canon.

You continue to confuse the rule/canon with the arbitration.

You seem to be forgetting that the defendant cannot simply exempt himself exclusively from accountability - substitutiong instead that whatever he says/does is simply to be accepted “with docility” as correct.

There is no analogy to The Catholic Church here. It rejects a rule/canon. It rejects accountability. It rejects any arbitration. No. It alone simply declares itself alone to be infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable. “I’m right cuz I’m right so I’m right. I don’t need no rule or norming cuz I’m right. Just accept whatever I alone say with docility - as God Himself speaking.” I see no defendant doing such under what you regard as sound.

They are held accountable to the faithful by God, Scripture, and by the decisions of past Magisteria.

No. It alone declares that it alone is INFALLIBLE, INCAPABLE of error. Thus needs no norming - by any rule.

Yes, of course, ALL are “accountable” to God at judgment day. But we’ve already established that The Catholic Church REJECTS your insistance that teachers ONLY be accountable thusly. It has a long, long history of holding teachers accountable RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW. It has had no problem regarding OTHER teachers as accountabile, for evaluating OTHER teachers, for arbitrating OTHER teachers, for finding them false - declaring them heretics, excommunicating them, perhaps dispatching them to the appointed afterlife ahead a schedule smelling like smoke. The Catholic Church disagrees that this “accountability TO GOD” is relevant here.

Yes, in evaluating OTHERS, it does have a rule/canon. It’s itself. It’s Catholic Tradition as The Catholic Church defines, chooses and interprets. It’s Scripture in the heart of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church. Its’ the Leadership of The Catholic Church as appointed by The Catholic Church among those pledged upon death to uphold the teachings of The Catholic Church. Yes, OTHERS are required to agree with The Catholic Church. But even The Catholic Church thinks it absurd to argue that The Catholic Church is thusly correct: self agreeing with self is entirely moot to the issue of self being correct. It rejects your alternative here - at least for itself. But then it rejects any accountability of itself. All are to accept whatever it alone says “with docility.”

… continues in the next post.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

continues the post above…

It seems to me that you lack faith in God to lead them “to all truth” so that his Church will remain “the pillar and foundation of truth” and will not be overcome by Satan.

… as the Mormon would also insist. Yes, I have the faith that God meant it when He warned us of false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray - and did not exempt The Catholic Church from taht warning. Yes, I have the faith to accept that Jesus was right to praise the Ephesian Christians for doing the opposite of what you are suggesting, for regarding teachers as accountable and NOT simply accepting whatever with docility. Yes, I have the faith that the true teacher comes into the light and welcomes the light. And the awareness that it is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teaching from accountability and norming, lay aside all that and just insist instead that whatever he alone says just be accepted with docility.

I disagree with you that Jesus made this promise not to people but exclusively to The Catholic Church. I disagree with you that God’s leading mandates our infallible following and that if God leads, ergo we are unaccountable. I rather believe that God always infallibly leads but that is moot to any infallibly following, and that God still holds us accountable (read the account of Adam and Eve?).

You seem to agree on the necessity of accountability for every man, woman, child, group, organization, body, teacher among us - with one glaring exception: The Catholic Church. You seem to agree on the need and soundless of a rule/canon and an arbitration both OUTSIDE and above the defendant - but with one glaring exception: The Catholic Church. You seem to agree that teachers should be held responsible for what they teach as doctrine, and you do, but you make one glaring exception: The Catholic Church. In this, you have no choice for this is required of you by one: The Catholic Church. THAT you do is not questioned by me (you can’t be Catholic otherwise). I do question the soundless of this rubric you are defending. Not only because of reason and life experience, but because of my study of the LDS and the cults (who say just as you do).

clothe yourselves in humility

See, I don’t view a defendant loudly, proudly boasting: “I’m exempt from all this. I don’t need no rule or no arbitration cuz I alone am right, so I’m right when I say that I along am right, so I am - forget all this accountability and arbitration stuff, just accept whatever I alone say with docility cuz when I alone speak, God is speaking” See, I just don’t see that as amazing humility. CCC 87, etc., etc., etc.

IMO, the humble and true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light.
It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, sheild his teaching from accountability, hide behind a wall of amazing claims of self for self, and insist that there is one who is just right cuz he just is: self.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[paul_c]

1. What does authority have to do with infalliblity?
2. If it comes from Christ, then quote Him. Where does He grant ANYTHING to The Catholic Church? In fact, where does He so much as mention The Catholic Church - about anything, for anything, concerning anything, in any regard or way?
3. You are continuing to do as you must: TRY to find some reason why the best rubric for determining if The Catholic Church is correct is for it alone to simply exempt it alone from the issue and substitute instead the requirement of it alone that whatever it alone says just be accepted “with docility.” Instead of addressing the issue of accountability and thus norming (and the required norma normans for such), you must get the issue off of accountability for exclusively one: The Catholic Church. And somehow justify that it is better for that one alone to insist that that one alone just be accepted “with docility” instead.

This rule is rejected by The Catholic Church as a rule/canon for the doctrines of The Catholic Church. It rejects it because 1) It is not accountable - to anything and 2) It would be a perfect circle that it rejects as absurd: self agreeing with self has ZERO relevance to self being correct - as Catholic apologists agree. I agree with me - you aren’t arguing that THEREFORE I’m infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable and whatever I say MUST be accepted with docility, as Jesus speaking. You reject your own apologetic.

Not at all. Nor have I questioned that Catholics may teach. What I disagree with is that best way to determine the correctness of a teacher is for that teacher to simply exempt himself alone from accountibility and instead he alone declare that whatever he alone says just be accepted with docility. “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right, I don’t need no norming cuz I’m right - so there; just accept whatever I alone say with docility, as God Himself speaking” is an epistemology I don’t accept. It’s not authority I reject, it’s self exempting self from accountability. IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident that God’s Truth is revealed in the light. It is the false teacher that hides in the dark, must sheild his teaching from examination and accountability and norming, who must instead insist that whatever he alone says just be accepted with docility.

If you can find some support for the idea that a human teacher is beyond accountability if he alone says so - then share it. If you can find some rationale for ignoring all God’s stern and bold warnings about false teachers (if that teacher exclusively is The Catholic Church), if you can find some reason why Jesus was wrong to praise the Ephesian Christians for NOT accepting what they were told with docility but rather regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for arbitrating the issue and for declaring them to be false - then share it.

.

Don’t you get tire of repeated the same arguments. Aren’t we done with this. You are no longer talking about sola scriptura, which we have discreditied. All you are doing is trying to discredit the church.

 

[Tomster]

Don’t you get tire of repeated the same arguments. Aren’t we done with this. You are no longer talking about sola scriptura, which we have discreditied. All you are doing is trying to discredit the church.

And a very feeble attempt at that!

 

[Philthy]

Hi AJ!

In response to this…
"me:

Your allegation that the canon of Scripture is analogous to the Rule of Law is tenuous at best. The Rule of Law, like the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus are detailed, specific rule books. There is no such clarity in the NT.

You “responded” with…

A rule is a rule. No, it’s not equal because Scripture is inerrant and God inscripturated. The Law is errant and altogether human.
I’m not sure if you realize it or not, but you didnt even begin to address the point I raised: Scripture is not written as laws are written - with “stand alone” clarity. Simply saying “A rule is a rule” does not cut it friend. Deuteronomy and Leviticus amply demonstrate God’s capacity to write “rules”. But God has chosen to do something different with the NT. It is not a rule book at all. In addition, pointing out the insignificant fact that Scripture is inerrant and “God inscripturated” - whatever that means - is also irrelevant to the issue of whether Scripture is analogous to the Rule of Law. My point stands as valid unless you can specifically show something relevant and substantive to refute it…

I also brought up the point that

More importantly, they each(Scripture and the Rule of Law) have a hierarchy of authority behind them to determine the authoritative judicious application of those laws.

Which you also apparently had issue with when you responded with…

And what is the rule/canon for The Supreme Court? Yup, the Rule of Law. It is to arbitate cases according to that canon.

This sounds to me very much like - analogous to - Catholicism. Catholicism has a canon of Scripture and an authoritative arbiter - The Magisterium. I guess I dont get your point, because you didnt make one that refuted the Catholic system and that was your intended reason for contributing to the thread. Unless, of course you believe that your church has a system superior to Catholicism with a Supreme Court…

You seem to be forgetting that the defendant cannot simply exempt himself exclusively from accountability - substitutiong instead that whatever he says/does is simply to be accepted “with docility” as correct.

Defendant? Ummm, we were talking about the Supreme Court, which is never a defendant. The Supreme Court RULES and is basically accountable to no one that I am aware of. Perhaps you are confusing your desire to put the Catholic Church on trial (that would make them the defendant) with the actual discussion we are having - does the Catholic Church’s Magisterium/Scritpure function analogously to the Supreme Court/Rule of Law.

There is no analogy to The Catholic Church here. It rejects a rule/canon.

News Flash: The Catholic Church, as you pointed out earlier, has affirmed the Canon of Scripture at least 4 times since the 4th century in the councils of Rome, Carthage, Hippo and Florence. What the heck are you talking about "the Catholic Church rejects a rule/canon?

It rejects accountability. It rejects any arbitration. No. It alone simply declares itself alone to be infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable… Just accept whatever I alone say with docility - as God Himself speaking." I see no defendant doing such under what you regard as sound.

I already addressed this in a prior post the members of the Magisterium

…are held accountable to the faithful by God, Scripture, and by the decisions of past Magisteria. Who would you like them to be held accountable by - you?

You ducked that question as well as the one which followed regarding the issue of whether I thought teachers are to be held accountable…

Yes they are. The question is to whom are they accountable, and how exactly is their accountability accomplished. What is your proposal exactly?

I will point out that rather than propose a solution, you simply tear down. I find most of the rest of your points mostly filled with anger and not particularly developed. The Catholic Church holds teachers from both within and from outside of itself accountable. You are mistaken to claim otherwise - people from within the Church have been censured or excommunicated - aka they were held accountable.
Anyhow, the analogy of a Supreme Court and a Rule of Law most strongly works for the Catholic Church than any other church I can think of. If you disagree, pony up your nominee for the position - otherwise its hard to take you seriously.

Blessings!

---