Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine

[neophyte]

Then is it okay for to discard the non-Tradition, non-biblical irrational innovation of papal infallibility ex cathedra

Papal infallibility is none of those things.

 

[MichaelP3]

I’m flattered that you think so. But its simple logic. If its taught, its a doctrine.

My question still stands and I would like to be informed.

Like Jon stated, Priestly Celibacy is taught yet not doctrine. So is there something, somewhere that would make this “doctrine” ?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Jon and those of his educated stripe already know this and see the obviousness of it. As such, their primary connection to their non-Catholic “church” (or their primary objection to the Catholic Church itself) is emotionally based.

Actually, my objection to the Catholic Church is singularly based on its teaching of universal jurisdiction.
But thanks, anyway, for you analysis.

That’s just rationalist “plaster” that most post-reformation Christians lay over their emotional attachment to their denom.

If universal jurisdiction was your prime objection, you’d be objectively Orthodox rather than Lutheran/Anglican/Episcopal/whatever mainline you claim these days. The objective argument for Orthodoxy’s just better.

 

[Vonsalza]

De_Maria:

I’m flattered that you think so. But its simple logic. If its taught, its a doctrine.

My question still stands and I would like to be informed.

Like Jon stated, Priestly Celibacy is taught yet not doctrine. So is there something, somewhere that would make this “doctrine” ?

There could be, sure. But there isn’t. It’s just a matter of discipline that’s been authoritatively decided upon by an authoritative Church.

That’s not to say that there aren’t different layers to the authority of Catholic beliefs. There obviously is. Priestly celibacy and the Trinity are obviously on different levels, as an example. But they’re both still binding, since the Church exists as a body that has authority over itself. The little ones are still binding, just like the big ones.

 

[MichaelP3]

I get your point. I really do.

Interestingly the poster replied to a post that was replied to me without replying to me and in all honesty dodging it. I would really appreciate a reply as I have gone through many Confessions but obviously could have missed something. I am just asking for the same formula. Is it official in some kinda way somewhere?

So therefore I might “get” the connection here. As it was stated it is the same formula. Maybe not in reality but many Catholics profess many things on here that even I can refer them to the Catechism. (not that this was the case)I am merely asking for the same argument.

The poster states “what most Protestants believe” so what is there to substantiate that? No not what some may believe as that’s the case with many people on here? Give an official reference? From some mainstream Protestant Church?

Still I can be wrong, hence my question?

Regards

 

[De_Maria]

My question still stands and I would like to be informed.

Like Jon stated, Priestly Celibacy is taught yet not doctrine. So is there something, somewhere that would make this “doctrine” ?

Sorry, I thought you were addressing Jon.

Yeah. Plain English. Anything that is taught, whether it be a discipline, a principle, a practice, a rule, a law, whatever, is a doctrine by definition.

Definition of doctrine

1 archaic : teaching, instruction
2 a : something that is taught
b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma Catholic doctrine
c law : a principle of law established through past decisions
d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations the Truman Doctrine
e : a military principle or set of strategies

Definition of DOCTRINE

a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma; a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations; a principle of law established through past decisions… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Vonsalza]

I think I see what you’re getting at.

De_Maria:

Nonetheless, although it’s not about you, it is about something which you and other Protestants, believe and teach, on this board and others.

And since you believe and teach it, it is a doctrine. That’s a fact, whether you like it or not.

I’m wondering now? All the times when Catholics are accused of some sort of ambiguous or whatever belief/practise, then it is always asked “to provide and OFFICIAL Catholic document” that would substantiate that.

And this is me really asking a question and I could be wrong? Is there in any mainstream Protestant Confession/Creed anything that would substantiate this claim?

No, there is no central authority across all Protestantism and their evangelical step-children that would function in the same way as a reference to the CCC or anything like that. I’ve seen a Baptist Church affirm the Westminster Confession of Faith while others scoff enormously at its reformed implications.

But what we can see is that en toto, there is an emphasis across the great majority of post-Catholic Christian groups that affirm the “sufficiency” or “authority” of scripture without any additional REAL qualifier. And no wonder. If you don’t have a divine priesthood to provide divine authority, to what do you appeal?

Scripture. Obviously (notwithstanding discussions about which scripture? and per whom?).

There are exceptions, of course. But they exist at the extreme ends of the distribution.

But you’re right. For Protestantism; Instead of one authoritative source proclaiming “SCRIPTURE!”, we have thousands of little voices crying “scripture!” in a broad din - objections always noted. Many of those objections are the quasi-Catholic, quasi-Protestant mainlines. But as time marches on, those objections are less and less relevant - for good or bad. They may very well be gone by the time my grandkids are old.

Forgive my American bias on the issue-

 

[De_Maria]

From some mainstream Protestant Church?

It is common knowledge that Protestants deny the perpetual virginity of Mary. But if you need some sort of confirmation, here it is.

Oops! I got the wrong idea. I thought you were talking about the denial of the virginity of Mary.

Now, as for Sola Scriptura, that is easy. It is one of the 5 solas to which all, so-called, Reformed gatherings adhere.

A Brief Introduction to sola scriptura – Lutheran Theology: An Online …

A Brief Introduction to sola scriptura

By Dr Hans Wiersma Sola Scriptura (Latin for “scripture alone”) is one of three or four—or five or six—“solas” that attempt to evoke the basic principles of Lutheran theology (or even Protestant Th…

lutherantheology.wordpress.com

Jan 18, 2011 - By Dr Hans Wiersma Sola Scriptura (Latin for “scripture alone”) is one of three or four—or five or six—“solas” that attempt to evoke the basic principles of Lutheran theology (or even Protestant Theology).[1] No matter how many solas you care to list, it would be difficult to deny that Sola Scriptura is an …

Sola scriptura cited as Reformation bedrock - Baptist Press
www.bpnews.net/49798/sola-scriptura-cited-as-reformation-bedrock
Oct 27, 2017 - Sola scriptura is among the most important Reformation principles for believers to understand and apply. That’s the conclusion of at least Southern Baptist Convention seminary professors on the Protestant Reformation’s 500th anniversary.

Jon, himself, adheres to that principle.

 

[MichaelP3]

Fair enough to the definition yet this would mean Priestly Celibacy IS doctrine, which it is not. So somewhere something is not adding up?

Also? You failed to say where this is even somewhat OFFICIALLY considered “doctrine” as the topic the the thread asks?

 

[MichaelP3]

Aren’t we talking about about “Sola Scriptura being doctrine”?

 

[De_Maria]

Fair enough to the definition yet this would mean Priestly Celibacy IS doctrine, which it is not. So somewhere something is not adding up?

It is doctrine based upon a simple knowledge of English. It is, however, a special type of doctrine designated a discipline.

Also? You failed to say where this is even somewhat OFFICIALLY considered “doctrine” as the topic the the thread asks?

It doesn’t need official declaration as a doctrine, since anyone who understands the English language can readily see that it is a rule which needs to be taught. No one is inherently born with the knowledge that Priestly Celibacy is required by the Catholic Church.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Priestly celibacy isn’t required by the Catholic Church, or there wouldn’t be married Eastern Catholic priests. It is a discipline, not a Doctrine.

 

[De_Maria]

Yep. I edited the response. Check it out.

 

[MichaelP3]

That is my point!

 

[De_Maria]

Priestly celibacy isn’t required by the Catholic Church, or there wouldn’t be married Eastern Catholic priests. It is a discipline, not a Doctrine.

That simply means that it is not an absolute law of God which can’t be changed. Therefore, it is a “doctrine” with a little d. Discipline simply means that it is a special type of teaching which self-control.

 

[De_Maria]

That is my point!

And this is mine.

That simply means that it is not an absolute law of God which can’t be changed. Therefore, it is a “doctrine” with a little d. Discipline simply means that it is a special type of teaching which self-control.

 

[MichaelP3]

But come on. That doesn’t make any sense at all. Contraception being wrong is a doctrine and a mortal sin. Does that mean it can be changed?

It is not a dogma but still authoritative? What is it then? Or is this a capital d but priestly celibacy is a small d?

 

[MichaelP3]

Still.

Where do we get anything “authoritative” stating that SS is a doctrine?

Again, really just a question?

 

[MichaelP3]

I understand your point. I am just wondering if there are any “official” documentations stating SS is doctrine" in one of those “first Protestant Confessions”? Even somewhere?

(I can even be mean and also argue that the “word” doctrine isn’t used (even when something is kinda found) as many of the other arguments go against Protestants)

Regards

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Then is it okay for to discard the non-Tradition, non-biblical irrational innovation of papal infallibility ex cathedra

Papal infallibility is none of those things.

So you say, and you should say. It doesn’t do a conversation positive to, off the cuff, make the statement that I made, or the statement it was a response to.
There was a time on CAF where dialogue was based on a mutual respect and acceptance of the other person’s statements about what they believed. That time seems to have passed. Now we seem to question what they say we believe and argue against that.