- Status
It should be said thus, if one is a Catholic in communion with the Bishop of Rome, or any other communion that doesn’t practice SS. On the other hand, those who believe it is implicit, or even explicit, will likely disagree.
That complicates it
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
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.
Last edited:
S
spina1953
Guest
In the Catholic Church there is a difference between discipline and doctrine. Disciplines can be changed while doctrines are based on Scripture and can not be changed In the secular world subjects are often called disciplines, so it can have different means, but discipline in the Catholic Church are rules to be followed and can be changed depending on circumstances. On the other hand doctrines can not be changed since it is based on Scripture and it can not be change to suit whatever someone decided to change it to make it mean something it never meant before. Doctrine is truth and truth can’t be changed.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
I wanted to post the same thing but I see you did already!
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Although there is nothing wrong with what you wrote I would just be careful with saying that doctrines are based on Scripture. All teachings/doctrines of the Catholic Church as based upon the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ; His words, His actions, His silences, His gestures, His miracles, His Person. Sacred Scripture, along with Sacred Tradition, transmits these doctrines while the Magisterium safeguards and promulgates them. I know you aren’t suggesting that the Catholic Church’s doctrines are solely based on Scripture, and all doctrines can be found in Sacred Scripture, but a Protestant might look at what you said and see implications of ‘Sola Scriptura’ whether you intended to or not. Otherwise, great post!
Last edited:
S
spina1953
Guest
August Therese, True what you said I was just being general as i did not want to go into all that you have said in your reply. My point was that God’s Word can’t be changed to suit what anyone wants it to say and men. AS for sola Scripture there wasn’t any in the early Church as there was no NT. just the OT and no canon for the OT existed at that time and also the OT was used to show how Christ fulfilled it. I also know froM John’s Gospel jesus said and did much more that was ever written down that was passed on in what we call Tradition.
S
spina1953
Guest
Sola Scripture was never a part of any Church doctrine since from the Apostles did not have any NT to work with only the oral teachings that Christ taught them and those who did write never once thought that what they wrote would some final authority to be found in a book that anyone could read and thereby be saved.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Who is saying that?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
It makes sense if one uses a bit of imagination to apply some grammar to the words.spina1953:
Who is saying that?
D
De_Maria
Guest
Thanks for admitting it.
You don’t? But you seem really upset that I do? What’s the difference between them and me?
Isn’t that what we’re doing?
Here’s what this website says. It purports to be a Lutheran website.
Notice that it portrays the formula of Concord saying, “we believe, teach and confess” regarding the principled of comparing any and all teachings and teachers to Scripture alone.
Here is how the dictionary defines doctrine:
So, Concord describes Sola Scriptura as a belief and a teaching. Both synomyms of doctrine.
Why then, is anyone wrong who considers Sola Scriptura a doctrine?
D
De_Maria
Guest
Because it doesn’t apply to everyone. But guess what, even those to whom it does not apply, are taught (indoctrinated) that the discipline exists and applies to others.De_Maria:
If it is a doctrine, then why are there married priests in the Catholic Church?
Let’s look again, at what CA says about this distinction.
Now, let’s look at the definition of doctrine.
Again, instruction is a synonym of teaching. And both are synonyms of doctrine.
But let’s look a litter closer. Here’s how that article starts out:
So, there’s the proof that I’m not the only Catholic who was taught that there is a class of doctrine that can change (See also this link). That class of doctrine, is disciplines.
But, anyway, the subject here, is Sola Scriptura.
I’m not admitting anything. I’m confirming a fact.
I’m not upset with you, other than the fact that you claim that Lutherans do. I don’t tell other groups that, for them, it really isn’t a doctrine.
Please go back and read what Father wrote about conflating terms. You have been corrected by Catholics about this practice that you are even misapplying to Catholic practice.
Last edited:
So, doctrine doesn’t apply to everyone? Really?
I think I will let Catholics deal with you on this.
But I can’t imagine anyone accepting your word for what Lutherans believe under the circumstances
Sure, but I’m thinking more of Rome in the second millennium.
On the second part, I agree
H
HarryStotle
Guest
A big part of the issue in this thread is the confusion between dogma and doctrine.
Dogma, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia…
Doctrine, on the other hand, is simply the body of teaching, practice or instruction that is passed on by the Church to its members. Some of which is pragmatic or organizational, but is not dogma in the sense of revealed or necessary truth.
So all dogma is necessarily doctrine, but not all doctrine is necessarily dogma or revealed truth.
Kind of like all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
Last edited:
S
spina1953
Guest
MichaelP3 I miss typed and did not put the word be between would and some. but my point was that those ho wrote never once ever thought that what they wrote was some final authority. In what became the OT was first spoken orally to communities before the stories were written down. and later were considered inspired. Those who wrote that became the NT never once ever thought that what they wrote was some final authority but was written instead to those communities when they were not able to see them in person… Jesus did not command any of the Apostles to write and most of the Apostles did not write anything at all. There is nothing in the NT nor so far as I know and understand in the OT where it says or states that the Bible is the final authority by which one is to be saved John in his Gospel only says that what he wrote was to that one might come to believe as he also said jesus did many things and said many things that have not been written down which in of itself implies the Apostles were teaching and preaching what had not been written down which again implies that sola Scripture could not have been taught either by the Apostles or their successors.
- Status