Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine

[HarryStotle]

De_Maria:

Bottomline, the Catholic Church teaches a disciplinary doctrine that priests must be celibate. Anything that is “taught”, is a doctrine

That is incorrect, with all due respect. Priestly celibacy is a discipline, albeit enacted by the authority of the Magisterium, that can be changed/lifted at any time. Doctrine, on the other hand, cannot and will not change, ever. As mentioned by @JonNC, there are plenty of married priests in the Latin Catholic Church.

You are also confusing doctrine with dogma. Dogma cannot change because it is God-revealed truth, but that is not true of all doctrine.

See my last post.

 

[spina1953]

De-Maria, what you state is not true. In the Catholic Church there is a difference between disciplinary and doctrine. Doctrine is doctrines found in Scripture. Discipline is rules that can be changed. Doctrine can not be changed. There are two canons he Latin canon which has the discipline of priests not marrying and the Eastern Catholic canon where priests can be married before becoming priests. This is by Tradition Each can be changed if the Church decides to while dogma or doctrine can not be changed.
Words can have many meanings depending on how they are used. Sola scripture maybe a teaching in some non-Catholic churches but it is not a teaching within the Catholic Church.

 

[AugustTherese]

You are also confusing doctrine with dogma. Dogma cannot change because it is God-revealed truth, but that is not true of all doctrine

Doctrine is all Church teaching in matters of faith and morals that cannot change.

Dogma is doctrine which has been divinely revealed and which the Church has formally defined and declared as revealed, and cannot change.

You are correct in that they are distinguishable. You are wrong in stating that “is not true of all doctrine” in if it can change.

 

[HarryStotle]

Sorry, I beg to differ.

Some doctrine can and does change. Merely because it is taught as currently applicable does not mean it cannot change.

There may be some doctrine that has the character of unchanging application or permanence, even if it is not dogmatic, but not all of it has that character. Doctrine is simply the body of teaching and instruction handed down to members of the Church. You aren’t claiming Church instruction never changes on anything, are you?

Matters of faith and morals that cannot change are dogmatic in character because they are revealed by God. Read the definition of dogma from my previous post: "a truth appertaining to faith or morals.”

If the Church has the power to define something not revealed (I.e., not dogma) as binding, then it has the power to define that matter as not binding – the authority to bind and loose. The fact that it is doctrinal but not dogmatic does not make it permanent, necessarily.

Some matters might be implicitly or virtually revealed and those are permanent and the Church has no authority to change them because they are God ordained and do not originate with the Church.

 

[AugustTherese]

Sorry, I beg to differ.

Some doctrine can and does change. Merely because it is taught as currently applicable does not mean it cannot change.

There may be some doctrine that has the character of unchanging application or permanence, even if it is not dogmatic, but not all of it has that character. Doctrine is simply the body of teaching and instruction handed down to members of the Church. You aren’t claiming Church instruction never changes on anything, are you?

Name a doctrine that has changed or could change.

 

[HarryStotle]

Name a doctrine that has changed or could change.

Any instruction or teaching that has been changed.

Children receiving the Eucharist at a specific age, for example.

 

[AugustTherese]

Children receiving the Eucharist at a specific age, for example

I’m quite certain that is disciplinary, canonical law and not a doctrine.

Where are you getting your definitions for Dogma and doctrine?

 

[De_Maria]

So, doctrine doesn’t apply to everyone? Really?

Some doctrines don’t. For example. Women can’t be priests.

Priesthood - Reserved to Men - EWTN.com
https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/priesthood_men.htm
In his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis (1994), the Holy Father Pope John Paul II, declared that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” This definitive statement leaves no “wiggle room” for those who would like to continue debating the question. As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made clear in 1995, the statement that the Church has no authority to ordain women as priests, is not merely a matter of Church discipline (which can be changed), but belongs to the deposit of faith (which cannot)…

 

[De_Maria]

You have been corrected by Catholics about this practice that you are even misapplying to Catholic practice.

I’m correcting them.

You didn’t answer my question. Should we just drop it?

 

[AugustTherese]

I’m correcting them

No, you’re not.

Women restricted from Orders is a doctrine that cannot and will not change.

Priests promising and practicing celibacy is a disciplinary practice that can change at any time, hence it is not a doctrine.

 

[De_Maria]

These are synonyms for “doctrine”:

principle …belief …dogma…teaching …tradition …canon …universal law …unwritten rules…

Therefore, canon law is also doctrine.

Anything that anybody teaches, is doctrine. Because doctrine means teaching. That’s just plain English.

 

[De_Maria]

I didn’t say it would. I said that the Priesthood does not include women. Therefore, it is a doctrine that does not apply to everyone.

Is a Sacrament a doctrine, in your opinion?

I say, yes. The Sacrament of Holy Orders is for men only. There are no female deacons or priests.

VI. WHO CAN RECEIVE THIS SACRAMENT?

1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination…

 

[AugustTherese]

These are synonyms for “doctrine”:

principle …belief …dogma…teaching …tradition …canon …universal law …unwritten rules…

Therefore, canon law is also doctrine.

Anything that anybody teaches, is doctrine. Because doctrine means teaching. That’s just plain English.

Equivocation fallacy. Please, Google ‘equivocation’.I’m not trying to be harsh towards you, but that’s what you’re doing.

 

[JonNC]

Some doctrines don’t. For example. Women can’t be priests.

Does this doctrine not apply to the whole Church?
If so, then you can’t claim it doesn’t apply to everyone.

 

[JonNC]

A big part of the issue in this thread is the confusion between dogma and doctrine.

I get that, Harry, and thanks.
I think the big issue is members of one communion accusing another communion of believing something it doesn’t.

 

[De_Maria]

Neh. The Church imposed rule of celibacy of the priesthood is first and foremost, a doctrine. No one who has not been indoctrinated in the Faith would know this otherwise.

I’m not denying that it’s a discipline. But merely pointing out that no one who wasn’t taught, no one who wasn’t indoctrinated, would know this to be true.

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.

I’m using the word “doctrine” consistently to mean teaching.

Here’s the problem. Lazy, imprecise use of language.

If someone says, Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine, because its a hermeneutical principle. Catholics will immediately recognize the error in such a statement. Because the two terms, hermeneutical principle and doctrine, are not mutually exclusive.

People have to be taught to use Scripture as a hermeneutical principle. People have to be indoctrinated to use Scripture as a hermeneutical principle. That makes it a doctrine.

It’s the same thing with disciplines in the Catholic Church. People have to be indoctrinated as to what are disciplines in the Catholic Church.

If a person says, “a discipline is not a doctrine.” What he actually means to say is, “a discipline is not an ABSOLUTE doctrine given to us in the Deposit of Faith.”

Here’s the way I understand Catholic Doctrine.

Catholic Doctrine is the whole.
There are three types of that.
I. Doctrine which is the equivalent of Tradition with a Capital T. I normally capitalize the D to show that it is absolute doctrine that can’t be changed. It comes from the deposit of faith.
Within this set, there is:

A. Dogma is the type of Doctrine that is extraordinarily defined and unchanging.
B. Doctrine which is not extraordinarily defined. But infallible nonetheless.

1. These include Sacraments, some Canon Law, some Rules of the Church (i.e. Sunday day of obligation).

II. Then, there’s doctrine which is the equivalent of tradition with a small t. It can change and does when the Church judges they need to be changed. Within this category of Catholic Doctrine, fall the:

A. liturgies, laws, disciplines and rules of the Church,
B. practices, prayers, some histories which are highly valued but can’t be verified.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Some doctrines don’t. For example. Women can’t be priests.

Does this doctrine not apply to the whole Church?
If so, then you can’t claim it doesn’t apply to everyone.

@AugustTherese
JonNC is using the fallacy of equivocation.

Certainly, Jon, the whole Church must be aware that the Sacrament of Holy Orders only applies to men. That is why it is spelled out in doctrine #1577 of the Catechism.

 

[AugustTherese]

The Church imposed rule of celibacy of the priesthood is first and foremost, a doctrine.

“It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher…”
1 Timothy 3:2

 

[De_Maria]

I think the big issue is members of one communion accusing another communion of believing something it doesn’t.

There you go again.

You can believe whatever you want. I’m merely pointing out that your belief, as stated, is illogical and an improper use of the English language. Anything that is taught is a doctrine. Hermeneutical principles must be taught.

 

[null02]

If Sola Scriptura was the sole source of authority :

1)The New Testament would be given by Christ himself or immediately recognized by Christianity. The fact that there wasn’t a Canon before 3rd or 4th century.

2)The Church would not rely on the teachings of the Apostles together with Scripture (Acts 2 and 17, the Christians converted in Pentecost and the Bereans)

3)There would be a single interpretation of the Bible and the heterodox view.But there are hundreds of different heterodox views.Protestantism itself is a bunch of different orthodoxies.

4)Christ would not have said to Peter that he was a Rock and to both Peter and the apostles that they would have authority - he would point Scripture.

“I would not believe on the Gospel,if it wasn’t for the authority of the Catholic Church” - St.Augustine in “Against the Fundamental Epistle of the Maniqueists”"