Sola Scriptura family problem

[tequilamac]

You are apparently behind the times. Your catechism offers the following:

*Wounds to unity
817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”[269] The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism[270] - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.[271]

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers … All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.*”[272]

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth”[273] are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”[274] Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,[275] and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”[276]
What say you?

All Catechisms, both current and past, teach this in one form or another. Notice above says nothing about corrupt dogma. The OP question we are answering from justasking4 was not whether Protestants can be saved. The question was are they heretics? The answer remains in all catechisms-yes. A Christian baptised into Christ who preaches and teaches corrupted dogmas are heretics. Sorry. Not my words. You will find them above. Fact is Protestants are baptised Christians who teach and preach corrupted dogma. Can you be saved? Yes. If you continue to teach and preach corrupted dogma especially after you learn what that dogma really is? Probably not.

 

[Reformed1]

A Christian baptised into Christ who preaches and teaches corrupted dogmas are heretics. Sorry. Not my words. You will find them above.

I didn’t see these words, can you point them out to me?

 

[tequilamac]

I didn’t see these words, can you point them out to me?

Certainly. Again. This is what the Church teaches on heresy. It is long. You may simply scroll down to the section on Luther and Protestants and skip the Arians and Gnostics, etc.
newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm#REF_V

 

[justasking4]

It is claimed that Protestants teach corrupt doctrine. On what basis is “corrupted dogma” defined? If a dogma-doctrine cannot be grounded in scripture is that dogma corrupt? Look at how many catholic doctrines cannot be grounded in scripture—

1. priestly celibacy i.e. forbidding married men to be priests in direct contradiction to I Timothy 3:1-7 in which Paul uses marriage as a requirement for leadership.
2. The assumption of Mary in which is never mentioned in scripture nor any exhortation to ever pray to her.
3. indulgences. There is no such concept in the NT.

This is not say there are not some false practices and doctrines in some protestant churches. The point is that the shoe fits on the catholic church as well

 

[tequilamac]

It is claimed that Protestants teach corrupt doctrine. On what basis is “corrupted dogma” defined? If a dogma-doctrine cannot be grounded in scripture is that dogma corrupt? Look at how many catholic doctrines cannot be grounded in scripture—

1. priestly celibacy i.e. forbidding married men to be priests in direct contradiction to I Timothy 3:1-7 in which Paul uses marriage as a requirement for leadership.
2. The assumption of Mary in which is never mentioned in scripture nor any exhortation to ever pray to her.
3. indulgences. There is no such concept in the NT.

This is not say there are not some false practices and doctrines in some protestant churches. The point is that the shoe fits on the catholic church as well

Corrupt dogma or doctrine is any doctrine or dogma contrary to the catholic faith. The Catholic Church has no false practices at all. Never has never will. God protects it from such.

 

[petra]

It is claimed that Protestants teach corrupt doctrine. On what basis is “corrupted dogma” defined? If a dogma-doctrine cannot be grounded in scripture is that dogma corrupt? Look at how many catholic doctrines cannot be grounded in scripture—

1. priestly celibacy i.e. forbidding married men to be priests in direct contradiction to I Timothy 3:1-7 in which Paul uses marriage as a requirement for leadership.
2. The assumption of Mary in which is never mentioned in scripture nor any exhortation to ever pray to her.
3. indulgences. There is no such concept in the NT.

This is not say there are not some false practices and doctrines in some protestant churches. The point is that the shoe fits on the catholic church as well

Corrupt doctrine is that which deviates from the depost of faith that Jesus passed to the Apostles. This is known as Sacred Tradition. Sacred Scripture is a subset of Sacred Tradition, so there are some doctrines that are not articulated as clearly in Scripture, but are preserved incorrupt by the Church of whom Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail.

I used to be Protestant, so I know where you’re coming from. It is not that Catholics take a lower view of Scripture by asserting doctrines that are not clearly articulated in Scripture. It is that they take a higher view of Christ as the Word of God (John 1:1). All revelation comes from Him. Sola scriptura is, itself, a corrupt doctrine because it discounts Jesus as the Word of God and discards much of what He passed to His Church.

 

[petra]

All Catechisms, both current and past, teach this in one form or another. Notice above says nothing about corrupt dogma. The OP question we are answering from justasking4 was not whether Protestants can be saved. The question was are they heretics? The answer remains in all catechisms-yes. A Christian baptised into Christ who preaches and teaches corrupted dogmas are heretics. Sorry. Not my words. You will find them above. Fact is Protestants are baptised Christians who teach and preach corrupted dogma. Can you be saved? Yes. If you continue to teach and preach corrupted dogma especially after you learn what that dogma really is? Probably not.

Not my words either. New Advent disagrees that all Protestants are heretics. If the component of dissent, revolt, or rejection of orthodox beliefs previously held is not present, the definition does not fit.

It is an objective reality that Protestants hold heretical beliefs. I exhort you to stick to that fact. Name calling does little to win hearts and minds.

 

[justasking4]

Corrupt dogma or doctrine is any doctrine or dogma contrary to the catholic faith. The Catholic Church has no false practices at all. Never has never will. God protects it from such.

COLOR=“DarkOrange”] Where is it promised that the catholic church would be protected by God to teach falsely? I know of no such verse or passage in scripture that offers such a promise to any church. Can you show me?

Secondly, Scripture warns of false teachers that will come in a decieve many. See2 Peter 2:1 for example. If what you are saying is true such a warning would be absurd.

Thirdly, is it not true that around the time of the reformation that many catholics believed the catholic church was in need of reform? If so, then this is an indication that something was wrong in the catholic that needed correcting.

 

[petra]

Where is it promised that the catholic church would be protected by God to teach falsely? I know of no such verse or passage in scripture that offers such a promise to any church. Can you show me?

Matt. 16:18

Secondly, Scripture warns of false teachers that will come in a decieve many. See2 Peter 2:1 for example. If what you are saying is true such a warning would be absurd.

Not at all! There have been many false teachers to lead Christians astray, including Martin Luther. By definition, though, false teachers have separated themselves from the Church. The Church itself if protected from error.

Thirdly, is it not true that around the time of the reformation that many catholics believed the catholic church was in need of reform? If so, then this is an indication that something was wrong in the catholic that needed correcting.

The Church was not in need of doctrinal reform. There was personal corruption among priests and bishops, and the Church acknowledged the problem and reformed itself with regard to practices. The concept of infallability does not mean that Church leaders are perfect. It means that the Church’s teaching authority on the issues of faith and morals are supernaturally protected by God to ensure that the Church endures to the end of the age.

 

[justasking4]

Matt. 16:18

This verse says nothing about any promise of the church being protected from teaching error. The context does not support this assertion.

 

[tequilamac]

COLOR=“DarkOrange”] Where is it promised that the catholic church would be protected by God to teach falsely? I know of no such verse or passage in scripture that offers such a promise to any church. Can you show me?

Secondly, Scripture warns of false teachers that will come in a decieve many. See2 Peter 2:1 for example. If what you are saying is true such a warning would be absurd.

Thirdly, is it not true that around the time of the reformation that many catholics believed the catholic church was in need of reform? If so, then this is an indication that something was wrong in the catholic that needed correcting.

The Church contains within it the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Christ cannot be wrong and Christ cannot be corrupt. Basic christian teaching you are apparently unaware of.
The Church people are always in need of reform. Always. For instance I went to mass today and the greeter who is apparently suffering from menopausal hot flashes told my husband off completely when he asked for a bulletin. Always in need of reform. The Church itself, the Magesterium, dogmas, doctrine never have and never will need reform. Too different things, my friend. Luther objected to what the human beings were doing. Later, after being excommunicated for corrupting dogmas, he claimed that which he previously believed to be in error.
The fact is one of the ways the Church protects the truth in it’s dogmas and doctrines is ex communicating those who preach differently. Because Christ cannot be corrupted and we cannot allow people to try.

 

[JOE_OBERR]

Originally Posted by JOE OBERR forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
I would ask them “please quote the bible verse that says to use ‘no book but the bible’”.

*there is no such verse. However, for the protestant bases its belief on the very nature of the scriptures themselves i.e. inspired-inerrant Word of God. No church traditions or man for example can rise to this level of authority *

Justasking4:

Since there is no verse supporting that concept the concept by definition is extra-biblical, i.e. it comes from outside of Scripture. Which means that a man came up with the concept (ex Catholic priest Fr. Martin Luther in approximately 1520).

Which means it is a tradition of men as no one practiced sola scriptura prior to the Martin Luther beginning the practice on his own authority in the 16th century. And this tradition of men contradicts the holy inspired written Word of God in Scripture as it is not in Scripture either directly or indirectly.

Jesus did not practice it nor did he teach his apostles to practice it. He taught them to preach the gospel he had taught them orally.

Jesus taught orally just as all the great teachers of the day did. He directed his apostles to teach the same way. St Paul taught orally. About 98% of the time when he mentions the gospel or Word of God the context is oral (I preach the gospel, you heard the word of God, faith comes by hearing etc).

Since he had made known to them “all” the Father had told him (Jn 15:15). What is this “all”? He did spend three years teaching them the secrets of the kingdom of heaven. It was more than just three or four sentences.

Joe

 

[tequilamac]

Originally Posted by JOE OBERR forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
I would ask them “please quote the bible verse that says to use ‘no book but the bible’”.

there is no such verse. However, for the protestant bases its belief on the very nature of the scriptures themselves i.e. inspired-inerrant Word of God. No church traditions or man for example can rise to this level of authority

Justasking4:

Since there is no verse supporting that concept the concept by definition is extra-biblical, i.e. it comes from outside of Scripture. Which means that a man came up with the concept (ex Catholic priest Fr. Martin Luther in approximately 1520).

Which means it is a tradition of men as no one practiced sola scriptura prior to the Martin Luther beginning the practice on his own authority in the 16th century. And this tradition of men contradicts the holy inspired written Word of God in Scripture as it is not in Scripture either directly or indirectly.

Jesus did not practice it nor did he teach his apostles to practice it. He taught them to preach the gospel he had taught them orally.

Jesus taught orally just as all the great teachers of the day did. He directed his apostles to teach the same way. St Paul taught orally. About 98% of the time when he mentions the gospel or Word of God the context is oral (I preach the gospel, you heard the word of God, faith comes by hearing etc).

Since he had made known to them “all” the Father had told him (Jn 15:15). What is this “all”? He did spend three years teaching them the secrets of the kingdom of heaven. It was more than just three or four sentences.

Joe

It’s more than Jesus just didn’t teach it though Joe. He also warned us against being the kind of people who spend all day studying the scriptures and missing the point.

 

[Reformed1]

Jesus did not practice it nor did he teach his apostles to practice it. He taught them to preach the gospel he had taught them orally.

Jesus taught orally just as all the great teachers of the day did. He directed his apostles to teach the same way. St Paul taught orally. About 98% of the time when he mentions the gospel or Word of God the context is oral (I preach the gospel, you heard the word of God, faith comes by hearing etc).

Since he had made known to them “all” the Father had told him (Jn 15:15). What is this “all”? He did spend three years teaching them the secrets of the kingdom of heaven. It was more than just three or four sentences.

Joe

Joe,

Has your church ever infallibly defined a single word spoken by Jesus or the apostles that hasn’t been recorded in scripture?

If so, where is this claim made?

 

[john654]

Hi,
I was wondering why it doesn’t say any thing about sola scriptura in the Bible?
John

 

[justasking4]

Matt. 16:18

Not at all! There have been many false teachers to lead Christians astray, including Martin Luther. By definition, though, false teachers have separated themselves from the Church. The Church itself if protected from error.

The Church was not in need of doctrinal reform.
How would you define indulgence? ( a simple defintion would be fine)

Can you also show me a couple examples of it in scripture?

Are you aware of the article on indugences in Catholic ency? I was reading some of it and it looks like it would be a great topic to discuss sometime.

Do you agree then that the pope and Tetzal were completely right in their promotion of indulgences?

There was personal corruption among priests and bishops, and the Church acknowledged the problem and reformed itself with regard to practices.

The concept of infallability does not mean that Church leaders are perfect. It means that the Church’s teaching authority on the issues of faith and morals are supernaturally protected by God to ensure that the Church endures to the end of the age.

Where is this grounded in scripture? There must be some specific passage that directly deals with such a claim. I’m not aware of any. What i am aware of is that the apostles do warn of false teachers coming into the church itself. In Acts 20:28-30, 2 Cor 11:12-14; Rev 2:15 we see this repeated warning about false teachers. In 2 Peter 2:1 it is clear that these false teachers would be among them. The danger in claiming not to be mislead by your leaders leaves you open to doctrines that cannot be supported by scripture nor those that come later.

 

[justasking4]

Hi,
I was wondering why it doesn’t say any thing about sola scriptura in the Bible?
John

What is your defintion of sola scriptura? That would be helpful. Then we can see if such a thing exist in scripture.

 

[justasking4]

It’s more than Jesus just didn’t teach it though Joe. He also warned us against being the kind of people who spend all day studying the scriptures and missing the point.

Can you show me where Jesus did warn “us against being the kind of people who spend all day studying the scriptures and missing the point.:?”

How do you know when you as a catholic read the bible know that you understand correctly what you just read? How do you know your interpretation and understanding is correct?

Also what do you make of Colossians 3:16 which says-

Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

or John 15:7 where Jesus says -7 “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

How do I do this without putting in some consistent study time?

 

[Victorious]

Where is it promised that the catholic church would be protected by God to teach falsely? I know of no such verse or passage in scripture that offers such a promise to any church. Can you show me?

Well, there’s 1 Timothy 3:14-15:

I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

The truth, by the way, came before Scripture, not the other way around. So it’s erroneous to speak of truth being grounded in Scripture, because it’s Scripture that’s grounded in truth.

1 Corinthians 11:2:

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

John 21:25:

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

2 Peter 1:20-21:

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

2 Peter 3:15-17:

So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.

 

[justasking4]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Where is it promised that the catholic church would be protected by God to teach falsely? I know of no such verse or passage in scripture that offers such a promise to any church. Can you show me?

Well, there’s 1 Timothy 3:14-15:
Quote:
I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

If you look at this passage you quote here, it has nothing to do with a promise for the church not to teach error. Paul is stating here a characteristic of the church and not that it is incapble of teaching error.