Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine

[spina1953]

Harry Stole. while your post is your opinion, its a twisted one since all that I know and understand concerning Catholicism is that what I posted about discipline, doctrine and dogma is what the Catholic Church says. You may disagree, but it changes nothing. So many on this forum have said much the same thing regarding SS and that it is not doctrine. Discipline, doctrine and dogma has bee explained by others, yet there are those like you who refuse to accept what Catholic’s have to say about it. At this point in time its getting very redundant to say the least.

 

[HarryStotle]

Harry Stole. while your post is your opinion, its a twisted one since all that I know and understand concerning Catholicism is that what I posted about discipline, doctrine and dogma is what the Catholic Church says. You may disagree, but it changes nothing. So many on this forum have said much the same thing regarding SS and that it is not doctrine. Discipline, doctrine and dogma has bee explained by others, yet there are those like you who refuse to accept what Catholic’s have to say about it. At this point in time its getting very redundant to say the least.

I suppose that invoking YOUR unsupported opinion as to “what the Catholic Church says” seems a knock-down argument on your behalf, you still haven’t addressed the fact that it is incoherent and leads to further issues. So I suggest it cannot be what the Church explicitly teaches.

You also haven’t replied with regard to what I quoted in post 119 from the Catholic Encyclopedia and CA. Those weren’t my opinion since I didn’t author those articles.

Please refer me to a post of yours that cites an official Church teaching supporting your view. If you have already, I don’t recall seeing it.

What “others” have said in this thread hasn’t been very convincing either, since it has been a series of their opinions about what the Church teaches which just happen to agree with yours. As I said, your explanation leaves large holes with regard to what follows implicitly from accepting your definition of terms.

 

[null02]

necessarily, though you would agree that the NT is given by God. The fact that the canon(s) were just coming into common usage isn’t the point.

SS is a response to the failings of the Church to maintain fidelity with the scriptures and even Tradition.

All the points that “proof” Sola Scriptura relies on how the Church deviated from its fidelity. You gotta proof that the Church deviated from its fidelity - what’s not found in History,except if you look at Protestantism.

Since this leads to Patristics and my knowledge of Patristics isn’t large,I’ll leave this piece for you and others.

 

[De_Maria]

This is your typical equivocation.

That’s all true.

On the contrary, you just admitted it was all true, everything that Harry Stottle said. And he is saying the very same thing I’m saying. Thus, it is you equivocating.

 

[spina1953]

Harry Stotle, First off where is it in Scripture that you can show me a chapter or verse where it says and states Sola Scripture is a doctrine or a discipline or dogma and or states the Scripture itself is a final authority. So far I have not been able to find anything in Scripture that says or states sola Scripture is a doctrine or even a teaching.
My posts reflect what the Catholic Church teaches concerning the meaning of discipline, doctrine and dogma and educated Catholic’s know this. However if you don’t want to accept what Catholics’s believe and what the Catholic Church defines these terms OK its not a problem as I can only inform what I as a Catholic understand what the Catholic Church teaches about what these term mean. I see no point is continuing to be redundant since how many times can anyone say much the same thing and still you and others are not wanting to accept what is said and continue to state we are wrong. I understand you are free to believe what you will and that’s Ok with me. I’m not hear to change anything you believe just to inform whether or not you agree with it is up t you.

 

[HarryStotle]

Harry Stotle, First off where is it in Scripture that you can show me a chapter or verse where it says and states Sola Scripture is a doctrine or a discipline or dogma and or states the Scripture itself is a final authority. So far I have not been able to find anything in Scripture that says or states sola Scripture is a doctrine or even a teaching.

Why are we shifting the goalposts to proving what the terms dogma and doctrine mean by using Sola Scriptura? It is a rather odd point you are making here.

My posts reflect what the Catholic Church teaches concerning the meaning of discipline, doctrine and dogma and educated Catholic’s know this. However if you don’t want to accept what Catholics’s believe and what the Catholic Church defines these terms OK its not a problem as I can only inform what I as a Catholic understand what the Catholic Church teaches about what these term mean. I see no point is continuing to be redundant since how many times can anyone say much the same thing and still you and others are not wanting to accept what is said and continue to state we are wrong. I understand you are free to believe what you will and that’s Ok with me. I’m not hear to change anything you believe just to inform whether or not you agree with it is up t you.

Merely appealing to “educated Catholics” is not an argument. And presuming that the Church teaches what you say it teaches without any further substantiation is circular reasoning.

If you want to insist the Church uses the terms dogma and doctrine as you say it does, then it is incumbent upon you to show that it does using doctrinal Church statements.

 

[FrDavid96]

The fact that “we” play fast and loose with a term on a frequent basis does not, then, support an argument regarding what is or is not discipline in a proper sense.

It’s not an argument. It’s an explanation. There is a difference.

Discipline is how we act; or the rules regarding how we act. Doctrine is what we believe. They are 2 different words and refer to 2 different concepts. Again, that is not an argument, it’s a statement of fact.

The term “mere discipline” means that it is only for the sake of good order but is not strictly-speaking required by the faith (ie required by doctrine).

It certainly doesn’t work on behalf of the argument that Sola Scriptura is merely a discipline when the reason for the “merely” is left up to the discretion of the user and “not a direct enforcement of doctrine or dogma.”

Here you’re taking different parts of the discussion and mixing them all together. I never said that the term “mere discipline” is left to the discretion of the user; nor did I write anything implying that.

As a Catholic, I believe that “Sola Scriptura” is an untruth. Therefore, I do not consider it doctrine or dogma. It is a false method of hermeneutics.

“Sola Scriptura” is A discipline. It is one form of thinking which is just one piece of a larger whole of a way of thinking or engaging in theology (or biblical study, etc).

For some groups of people, sola scriptura is both a discipline and a doctrine. As I said earlier, this applies to the evangelicals and fundamentalists. For a fundamentalist, sola scriptura is indeed a doctrine of theirs, which a Catholic would call a false doctrine.

For most Protestant denominations, sola scriptura is not doctrine by itself, but it is a method of discerning doctrine. And it must be noted that the method is not universally applied to all Protestants. Some (even non-fundamentalist denominations) employ it, some don’t.

Nor does it even address the reason why it might be reliable hermeneutic practice or discipline to begin with. Surely, it must be supported by some doctrine or dogma somewhere to attain the degree of influence or practice that it does. If it is “merely a discipline” then why would anyone base their entire exegetical approach upon it without any solid reason (i.e., some dogma or, at least, a sound doctrine) for doing so?

That last part is easy to address as a Catholic. It’s simply a false idea. I’m certainly not doing to defend it.

 

[FrDavid96]

If you want to insist the Church uses the terms dogma and doctrine as you say it does, then it is incumbent upon you to show that it does using doctrinal Church statements.

The answer to that is right here
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...c_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Doctrinal Commentary
on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei

by then-Cardinal Ratzinger

He articulates 3 levels of doctrine.

Note also that he does NOT refer to discipline. The Oath of Fidelity (on assuming an office in the Church) does address the issue of discipline—that of adherence to ecclesiastical laws, however this issue is not addressed in the Cardinal’s accompanying letter.

This is one rather clear example of the difference between discipline and doctrine.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

If you want to insist the Church uses the terms dogma and doctrine as you say it does, then it is incumbent upon you to show that it does using doctrinal Church statements.

The answer to that is right here
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...c_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Doctrinal Commentary
on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei

by then-Cardinal Ratzinger

He articulates 3 levels of doctrine.

Note also that he does NOT refer to discipline. The Oath of Fidelity (on assuming an office in the Church) does address the issue of discipline—that of adherence to ecclesiastical laws, however this issue is not addressed in the Cardinal’s accompanying letter.

This is one rather clear example of the difference between discipline and doctrine.

I am not clear that it implies the kind of difference you suggest that it does. Now there is a distinction to be made between them, but that does not imply they are separable in the sense you seem to suggest.

Reading the Oath of Fidelity from then Cardinal Ratzinger, it seems very clear that the distinction between doctrine and discipline aligns virtually in precisely the way that the intellect and will are distinguished. Matters of doctrine align with matters of the intellect, whereas matters of discipline align with matters of the will. Cardinal Ratzinger implied this several times when he referred to assent, obedience, submission, and fidelity.

As rational animals, I wouldn’t suppose that matters of discipline have nothing to do with truth or beliefs about the truth. In fact, it isn’t very clear that the intellect and will can be separated out as cleanly as your distinction between doctrine and discipline would presuppose. These are not completely separate spheres of existence. In fact, Thomistic metaphysics proposes that the True (the object of the intellect), the Good (the object of the will) and the Beautiful (the object of the senses) are fully transpositional – at their ground in God, the Good is the True is the Beautiful. Roughly summed up by Jesus as I Am [God is] the Way, the Truth and the Life.

This implies very strongly that discipline is something like a modality of doctrine in the same sense that the Good is a lens through which the True is to be seen as it pertains to the will rather than the intellect.

 

[HarryStotle]

One more point on Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter:

To this paragraph belong all those teachings – on faith and morals – presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgement or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with those truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.

Note that at all levels from that of defined dogma to solemn judgement and those “proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium,” the teachings involve “religious submission of the will and intellect,” implying that at all levels, including the most solemn dogmatic statements, these require, not merely intellectual assent but, a complete submission of the will. Ergo, they are not merely doctrinal but implicitly disciplinary, as well.

 

[De_Maria]

He articulates 3 levels of doctrine.

Note also that he does NOT refer to discipline.

Yes, it does.

Note that at all levels from that of defined dogma to solemn judgement and those “proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium,” the teachings involve “religious submission of the will and intellect,” implying that at all levels, including the most solemn dogmatic statements, these require, not merely intellectual assent but, a complete submission of the will. Ergo, they are not merely doctrinal but implicitly disciplinary, as well.

Perfectly correct. Even the oath of fidelity which was produced says:

I shall follow and foster the common discipline of the entire Church and I shall maintain the observance of all ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...c_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html

 

[spina1953]

Harry Stotle, I was not appealing to educated Catholic’s but pointing out what educated Catholic’s understand concerning disciple, doctrine and dogma’s Call it what you will “circular reasoning” etc. but it does not change the fact that the Catholic Church uses these terms to explain how Catholic’s are to understand. Sola Scripture is contrary to Catholic teachings insofar as it is looked on as individual authority as to what Scripture says and means. Although many Fundamentalist denominations consider sola scripture to be a doctrine central to their belief system, it is not within the Catholic frame work of teaching as a disciple or doctrine nor dogma.
I am not insisting instead I am informing there is a difference between the two i think. I also think if you want to look these terms from Catholic sites I rather think they will say much the same as I am saying… Words can have many meanings depending on how one wants to use them. For example someone might say 'that’s bad meaning that ‘it is good’. can be confusing to say the least. I am also sure different Protestant denominations have various understandings of disciple doctrines and dogma’s depending on their belief systems.

All anyone can do is inform as to what they understand and know, if you won’t accept that then you are free to think however you like but it won;t change the way Catholic’s and the Catholic Church understands the use of the terms and how they want it to mean.

 

[spina1953]

Fr. David 96. I believe has addressed your concerns Harry Stotle by providing a link to the doctrinal statements you are asking for. So if that does not satisfy your query most likely nothing will.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

He articulates 3 levels of doctrine.

Note also that he does NOT refer to discipline.

Yes, it does.

No. It does not.

This is just another attempt by you to manipulate the texts. Something you do quite often.

As I clearly stated in my earlier post, then-Cardinal Ratzinger does not (not one single time) refer to discipline. The Oath refers to discipline—as I correctly noted in my post, but NOT the Doctrinal Commentary.

Again, you’re simply manipulating texts, both those of the Church and the words that I posted.

The Oath and the Commentary are two different texts.

I challenge you to show me where the word “discipline” even occurs in the Doctrinal Commentary written by then-Cardinal Ratzinger. Which paragraph and exactly what sentence contains the word “discipline”?

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

FrDavid96:

He articulates 3 levels of doctrine.

Note also that he does NOT refer to discipline.

Yes, it does.

No. It does not.

This is just another attempt by you to manipulate the texts. Something you do quite often.

As I clearly stated in my earlier post, then-Cardinal Ratzinger does not (not one single time) refer to discipline. The Oath refers to discipline—as I correctly noted in my post, but NOT the Doctrinal Commentary.

Again, you’re simply manipulating texts, both those of the Church and the words that I posted.

The Oath and the Commentary are two different texts.

I challenge you to show me where the word “discipline” even occurs in the Doctrinal Commentary written by then-Cardinal Ratzinger. Which paragraph and exactly what sentence contains the word “discipline”?

That’s besides the point.

What does “the common discipline of the whole Church” refer to?

 

[FrDavid96]

That’s besides the point.

No. It is exactly the point.

It is the fact that the Church understands the difference between discipline and doctrine. The fact that the Cardinal does not speak of discipline when he describes doctrine is proof that the Church sees these as being two different things.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

That’s besides the point.

No. It is exactly the point.

It is the fact that the Church understands the difference between discipline and doctrine. The fact that the Cardinal does not speak of discipline when he describes doctrine is proof that the Church sees these as being two different things.

What does the term “common discipline of the entire church”, mean?

 

[MichaelP3]

I really admire your perseverance!