Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Yes. You did. Two things there.

You also told me that you’re no longer Lutheran.
So, Lutheran beliefs are no longer your beliefs.

Irrelevant.

On the contrary, perfectly relevant. You claimed that I misrepresented your beliefs, you need to prove that point.

My not being Lutheran does not change the FACT that they do not describe SS as Doctrine.

ROFL! Let me get this straight. You’re claiming that I’m saying that Lutherans describe SS as Doctrine?

In other words, you think that you said that SS is not a doctrine and that I responded that Lutherans believe that SS is a doctrine. Lol!

No. I said that you don’t believe SS is a doctrine and that Protestants agree with you. And I am now proving that this idea that you share with some other Protestants is illogical and self contradicting.

Roll the OP, please:

Title: Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine

Contents:

On an anti-Catholic board, I’m having a discussion about what one of our member said,

Paraphrasing, he said that “Sola Scriptura is a hermeneutical principle. A practice to determine whether something is a doctrine. But it is not a doctrine, itself. That is why SS is not in Scripture.”

That sounds totally illogical to me. I say, “Don’t you practice what you preach (i.e. doctrine)?” We do. We preach that a doctrine is valid if it is found in Sacred Tradition and Scripture in accordance with the Magisterium. This is what we preach and this is what we practice and this practice is taught in Tradition and Scripture in accordance with the Magisterium.

It sounds to me as though some Sola Scripturists are making an excuse for the fact that Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture.

What do you think?

Let me explain this to you in the simplest possible terms.

You said that SS is not a doctrine. I took that to an anti-Catholic board to see if they agreed with you. They did.

I brought it back to this board to see what Catholics had to say about that surprisingly illogical and irrational statement.

I’m not here proving that Protestants said anything officially. You’ve admitted that I paraphrased you accurately. And other Protestants agreed with you. I’m here showing how that statement is self contradicting.

I said that I had met Lutherans who understood Lutheranism differently than you.

That’s not what you’ve said.

[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is.

And you’ve provided no source to dispute what I’ve said. MichaelP3 has asked more than once for a source that describes it as doctrine.

Answered above.

 

[PickyPicky]

I should say first that Jon and I are miles apart in our views on religion, and, I suspect, many moral and political issues, too. But I’ll tell you something about him. His background, experience and knowledge makes him particularly credible in matters of Lutheran belief and practice. And his presence on this forum displays a degree of peacefulness and politeness which I find enviable.

If you want to learn about Luther or Lutheran churches, or even to demonstrate that SS is untenable, you could hardly want for a better correspondent.

But (and I hope you will not be offended by this) your tone of voice, which strikes me, at least, as condescending, patronising, triumphalist and catcha-gotcha, simply gets in your way. I would advise, in so far as I have the right to do so, that a more irenic approach might serve you better.

 

[De_Maria]

(and I hope you will not be offended by this) your tone of voice, which strikes me, at least, as condescending, patronising, triumphalist and catcha-gotcha, simply gets in your way.

ROFL! Really? If you didn’t want to offend, why so many adjectives? I think it is your words that are getting in your way.

Anyway, this thread’s neither about you nor about Jon nor about me. It’s about the idea that some Protestants are espousing, that Sola Scriptura is only a hermeneutical principle and not a doctrine.

Where do you stand on that issue?

 

[PickyPicky]

Well, I thought not, but it was perhaps worth a try.

As to the issue, I don’t stand on it.

Merry Christmas.

 

[MichaelP3]

I’m sorry. For some reason, I assumed you were Catholic.

Really? I am seriously intrigued as to why?

 

[Elf01]

My guess would be that it’s the default assumption on a Catholic forum and he didn’t check your profile.

 

[MichaelP3]

Fair enough! Although I have conversed with the poster before on various subjects… guess I was just a “misinformed Catholic” then.

 

[De_Maria]

Fair enough! Although I have conversed with the poster before on various subjects… guess I was just a “misinformed Catholic” then.

I’m conversing with several people on two forums right now. I really don’t keep track of their names.

Really? I am seriously intrigued as to why?

Well, let me look at your messages. Oh. I think my confusion started when I thought you were addressing Jon.

Sorry, I thought you were addressing Jon.

I think you sounded Catholic when you said:

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…

So, I thought you addressed the wrong person and passed it up.

Now, I’m wondering why you’re making such a big deal out of it? Are you really that offended to be confused for a Catholic?

 

[MichaelP3]

Now, I’m wondering why you’re making such a big deal out of it? Are you really that offended to be confused for a Catholic?

Absolutely no offence taken. My very lovely family in law is VERY Catholic and I love them very much. Why would you think I was offended, I was surprised… big difference…

I’m rather patting myself on the back that I know Catholicism that well that you got confused. Taking your “priestly celibacy” thread into account I wouldn’t say I am not doing bad at all.

Thank you

 

[De_Maria]

I know Catholicism that well that you got confused.

Right is right and wrong is wrong. Even CA, unwittingly, classifies disciplines as doctrines.

Is It a Doctrine or a Discipline? | Catholic Answers

Is It a Doctrine or a Discipline?

How does the Catholic Church distinguish between "doctrine" and "discipline?" Here are some helpful tips to help you understand the difference.

www.catholic.com

Jul 1, 2008 - Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia defines “discipline” as an “instruction, system of teaching or of law, given under the authority of the Church [which] can be changed with the approval of proper authority, as opposed to doctrine, which is unchangeable” (334). Discipline, then, is man-made and can …

Synonyms for doctrine
noun opinion; principle

…teaching…instruction…

Thesaurus.com - The world's favorite online thesaurus!

Thesaurus.com is the world’s largest and most trusted online thesaurus for 25+ years. Join millions of people and grow your mastery of the English language.

www.thesaurus.com

 

[MichaelP3]

I’m not exactly sure why you would give that first link if you are sure of your argunent. I went and read the whole thing and this comes up…

“Let’s go back to the question of priestly celibacy. As Catholics, we know this practice to be a matter of discipline, not doctrine. But non-Catholics often fail to understand the concept of discipline and unwittingly think we believe priestly celibacy to be a doctrine of our faith”

So not sure what you proved? I would think that link supports everyone else here?

Regards

 

[De_Maria]

Because it uses the words “instruction and teaching” to describe discipline (i.e. defines “discipline” as an “instruction, system of teaching). Ergo, it describes discipline as a doctrine.

 

[MichaelP3]

Yet it clearly say the opposite. Not really sure it helps your case inferring so many other things.

Your best bet on that article is that it is contradicting and should be tossed altogether.

 

[FrDavid96]

Because it uses the words “instruction and teaching” to describe discipline (i.e. defines “discipline” as an “instruction, system of teaching). Ergo, it describes discipline as a doctrine.

Your capacity for equivocating words is truly amazing.

When the encyclopedia defines discipline as a form of instruction, that does NOT equate discipline with doctrine.

Instead, what it actually means is that the word “discipline” is sometimes used in the English language to refer to an academic subject. For example, people attend college to study different majors. One studies music theory, another history, another accounting.

We might call these “majors” or “subjects” or we might call them “disciplines.”

What are you studying? Music theory.
What is your major? Music theory.
What is your discipline? Music theory.

That is the definition of discipline as teaching. It does NOT at all mean that Catholic discipline is the same as Catholic teaching.

You are completely confusing that notion of discipline (ie subject matter) with church doctrine just because they share a common synonym, ie “teaching.”

You are actually taking the practice of equivocating and multiplying it.

It amazes me, it truly does, how you can equivocate words to suit yourself.

 

[spina1953]

Sola Scripture can’t be a doctrine since from the early Church the Apostles and their successors taught and preached without any NT written down. On top of that what OT writings they used to show how Christ fulfilled the OT was not a canon and there were at last three types of OT writings, the Torah which had only 5 Books, the Palistian which had the Prophets the law and writings and the Septuagent which the Apostles used for the most part. Jews did not own or have in their homes scrolls of the OT so would not have been able to use a sola Scripture, and the early Christians did not use sloa Scripture since nearly 95 % of the population could not read or write. The canon of the Bible was only decreed about 381 AD. Even at the time of the Reformation most people could not read or write so sola Scripture could not be used. Sola Scripture is not a doctrine or even a disipline its more personal authority of one deciding what one wants it to mean and say.

 

[MichaelP3]

Well yea. The Protestant position is that it is not. I’d like to know what would be considered “doctrine” from a Protestant view? I can think of some but those would be wholeheartedly agreed to by Catholics.

Just a thought…

Regards

 

[MichaelP3]

Hi De_Maria.

I would strongly advise you to read and reflect on the post by FrDavid96.

You have many websites you post on and even I would rather that you post “actual Catholic teachings”.

Your intent with this thread worked out the other way as you planned. I am not Catholic but… all on here /there agreed with me (seeing as I was qouted in the OP in that thread, I am pretty happy about that). I can also google and know what Catholics should believe. So in this instance, seeing everyone including a priest agrees, let’s call it a day on that subject?

Regards

 

[De_Maria]

When the encyclopedia defines discipline as a form of instruction, that does NOT equate discipline with doctrine.

Hm? I didn’t say that the word discipline meant instruction.

Instead, what it actually means is that the word “discipline” is sometimes used in the English language to refer to an academic subject. For example, people attend college to study different majors. One studies music theory, another history, another accounting.

We might call these “majors” or “subjects” or we might call them “disciplines.”

That’s a different sense of the word discipline which actually, substantiates my argument. But that’s not the point I’m getting at.

What are you studying? Music theory.
What is your major? Music theory.
What is your discipline? Music theory.

Agreed.

That is the definition of discipline as teaching. It does NOT at all mean that Catholic discipline is the same as Catholic teaching.

But the discipline we are talking about is in the sense of rule or code of behaviour.

You are completely confusing that notion of discipline (ie subject matter) with church doctrine just because they share a common synonym, ie “teaching.”

Nope.

You are actually taking the practice of equivocating and multiplying it.

Nope.

It amazes me, it truly does, how you can equivocate words to suit yourself.

It amazes me that Catholics don’t understand this topic.

After all, Catholics are astounded when Protestants say, “Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine.” Which, of course, it is. Sola Scriptura has to be taught. And there are many schools teaching on the subject of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is also a hermeneutic principal. But it remains a teaching.

But here, we have Catholics who don’t realize that everything the Catholic Church teaches is doctrine. It must be an English speaking phenomenon because while they send their children to CCE. Spanish speaking people send their children to “la doctrina”.

What did you learn at “la doctrina” today, son? “I learned that priests can’t be married. Is that true?” Yes, son, that’s true. It is only a discipline, though. Not an absolute doctrine.

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

 

[JonNC]

After all, Catholics are astounded when Protestants say, “Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine.” Which, of course, it is. Sola Scriptura has to be taught. And there are many schools teaching on the subject of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is also a hermeneutic principal. But it remains a teaching.

Why should you be astounded? Why do you even care? More importantly, why do you feel compelled to question it?
There are communions who do consider it doctrine. i don’t care if they do. If we have a conversation, we can discuss the different views.
It seems to me that the greater issue is the comparison of SS to how Catholics express the formulation of doctrine.

 

[JonNC]

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

If it is a doctrine, then why are there married priests in the Catholic Church?