Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine

  • Thread starter Thread starter De_Maria
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
English wasn’t a language I grew up in religiously? Or actually grew up in…

Does this make me a special case? According to my language I can use some very different definitions. Does that change anything?

I can have some very interesting conversations on here but people will tell me I am wrong (kinda like with you at the moment…)

Regards
 
AugustTherese said:
40.png
De_Maria:
The Church imposed rule of celibacy of the priesthood is first and foremost, a doctrine.
Click to expand...
“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
Click to expand...
Now, you’re using the fallacy of incredulity. You can’t understand what I’m explaining to you, so it can’t be true.

That, was the original doctrine. In the Catholic Church, Roman rite, it’s been replaced by another. A disciplinary doctrine.
 
The Catholic Church is universal. That means she teaches the same thing in many languages.
 
I’m not sure where you got confused here but I am sure everyone disagreeing with you are saying the same thing. They are all trying to make you understand EXACTLY what you have posted there…

And although I agree with your post, why are you stuck up on the English language like Jesus spoke English or something even remotely related?
 
De_Maria said:
40.png
JonNC:
I think the big issue is members of one communion accusing another communion of believing something it doesn’t.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
And so can you. But I think you need to contend with the corrections coming from your own Church instead of worrying about what others teach.
 
null02 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is actually off the topic, but it is really the right issue to discuss. So,
  1. No. not 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.
null02 said:
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)
Click to expand...
No. SS does not, in any way eliminate the teachings of the apostles or their disciples or the councils.
null02 said:
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
Click to expand...
Why would you expect that when there wasn’t a single interpretation using scripture and Tradition?
null02 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You realize that scripture gives the Church teaching authority? Good. So does SS, since it is in scripture. SS simply requires the Church to use scripture as the final norm.
null02 said:
I would not believe on the Gospel,if it wasn’t for the authority of the Catholic Church” -
Click to expand...
Amen.
 
As if the English language was not self-destructing quickly enough, we now have ‘auto-incorrect’ to facilitate! 😃
 
JonNC said:
40.png
De_Maria:
40.png
JonNC:
I think the big issue is members of one communion accusing another communion of believing something it doesn’t.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
And so can you.
Click to expand...
I know. I’m not the one that continually complains that someone is telling me what I believe, though.
But I think you need to contend with the corrections coming from your own Church instead of worrying about what others teach.
Click to expand...
That’s a different topic. Not regarding Sola Scriptura and whether it’s a doctrine or not.
 
AugustTherese said:
I’m quite certain that is disciplinary, canonical law and not a doctrine.

Where are you getting your definitions for Dogma and doctrine?
Click to expand...
I assumed that was the standard view. I learned it years ago and it has been echoed numerous times.

My posting mentioned the Catholic Encyclopedia. Look up dogma and doctrine there.

The Catechism says explicitly,
The Church’s magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. (CCC 88)
Click to expand...
Catholic Answers’ apologist Jim Blackburn says,
In general, doctrine is all Church teaching in matters of faith and morals. Dogma is more narrowly defined as that part of doctrine which has been divinely revealed and which the Church has formally defined and declared to be believed as revealed.
Cf. What Is the Difference between Doctrine and Dogma? | Catholic Answers
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Priestly celebacy is not a doctrine. It is a dicpline. There are married Latin Rite Priests, byzantine rite priests…
 
Not sure how much I can help. The OP does not understand the definitions of the words “doctrine” and “discipline.” Therefore, the original question is really moot.

To answer it though, the person quoted in the OP is correct. Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine, it is a method of hermeneutics.

The exception is that for some evangelicals and especially fundamentalists (often these overlap) sola scriptura is indeed a doctrine of theirs.
 
JonNC said:
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.

So, you know my situation. You must know the location of the nearest EO church to where I live?

Wow! I didn’t think I shared that much information.
Click to expand...
Vonsalza has some very good replies. But I think what is IMPLIED in his remarks is “to a consistent mind.” However, he hit the nail on the head earlier when he said it was emotional based. This cannot be overestimated, either by the adversary or the individual himself.
 
AmbroseSJ said:
Vonsalza has some very good replies. But I think what is IMPLIED in his remarks is “to a consistent mind.” However, he hit the nail on the head earlier when he said it was emotional based. This cannot be overestimated, either by the adversary or the individual himself.
Click to expand...
Well, sure we all have an emotional attachment to both our communion and our local parish, particularly if we are raised in it. But, if one becomes certain that the Pope truly has supremacy / universal jurisdiction, that should be an overwhelming reason to be in communion with him, regardless of emotional and even family ties.
OTOH, if one is certain that this is not the case, then it would be disrespectful and dishonest to be in communion with him.
Being continuing Anglican is no less consistent to these perspectives than being EO.
 
JonNC said:
Being continuing Anglican is no less consistent to these perspectives than being EO.
Click to expand...
I understand your view, and believe it is consistent to a certain extent. From LCMS to Anglican is a move toward Catholicity in my view. 😀 We are humans dealing with humans, so it is not always easy understanding motives and rationales, even our own!

I am very perplexed with my Evangelical siblings. Yet I constantly question my own motives and reasons for perplexity. Faith issues are so personal and not just a matter of logic or who’s right or wrong. :confused:
 
FrDavid96 said:
Not sure how much I can help. The OP does not understand the definitions of the words “doctrine” and “discipline.” Therefore, the original question is really moot.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say “moot,” precisely, since all discipline is based upon dogma or doctrine and more likely, perhaps, the latter if the discipline is changeable. Discipline doesn’t just float by itself on its own power, so to speak. There has to be some theological, spiritual, or moral reason behind the practice being implemented or imposed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top