Sola-Scriptura is responsible for infanticide

[SoCalRC]

No. You raised the point. It is therefore your responsibility to provide some background for it.

OK, Columbus and his men not only killed many indiginous people, they did so in some very heinous ways. For example, there are journals describing a ‘sport’ of seeing how long a native child can survive while being mauled and eaten by dogs.

I cannot speak for what happened south of 49. Up here there were some destructive encounters and some less destructive encounters between Catholics and First Nations. As it stands today, apologies have been made. Can the same be said among Protestants?

I see, so your point is that atrocities occurred but that you want to use comparisons to other atrocities to establish a relative moral distinction.

I am sorry, that is not a conversation I can participate in.

Best Wishes

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SoCalRC:

OK, Columbus and his men not only killed many indiginous people, they did so in some very heinous ways. For example, there are journals describing a ‘sport’ of seeing how long a native child can survive while being mauled and eaten by dogs.

From what Church doctrine did this derive?

SoCalRC:

I see, so your point is that atrocities occurred but that you want to use comparisons to other atrocities to establish a relative moral distinction.

No. I want to shed light on the elephant in the room.

SoCalRC:

I am sorry, that is not a conversation I can participate in.

Then why comment apart from making an attempt at hit and run?

 

[SoCalRC]

From what Church doctrine did this derive?

None. And that, I suppose, is the point.

Then why comment apart from making an attempt at hit and run?

I thought, from your first post, that you were stating that the human rights violations were strictly a Protestant phenomena. That seemed historically inaccurate to me, so I asked.

You seem to concede that Catholics were not without sin in the matter. So, my interest in the subject was met.

I provided one example, because you insisted. I tried to avoid giving specifics because I am highly skeptical of these sorts of causality arguments and, as stated, did not think I would present the subject material in a broad and balanced way.

That’s it.

 

[SoCalRC]

None. And that, I suppose, is the point.

Turns out I was wrong. Columbus and his men thought that the brutality was a necessary part of making the indiginous people take their rightful place as slaves. Their thinking was based on two Papal bulls:

DUM DIVERSAS (1452), granted Afonso V of Portugal the right to reduce any “Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers” to hereditary slavery. This was reaffirmed and extended in ROMANUS PONTIFEX (1455).

 

[chrisg93]

I think that FrankLawrence original post is correct, but for the wrong reasons. In North Carolina ( I don’t know about other parts of the country) Sola Scripture has lead to 2 problems with abortion…

1. The mistaken notion that all sin is sin and that all sins are the same. I hear this all the time - that abortion is no worse than any other sin. This is, of course, horribly mistaken.
2. No concept of Purgatory which leads people to believe that you can kill a baby and then tell God “I’m sorry” and get away with abortion without any punishment.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

It would be nice if you can point to facts, history that backs up your claim. so far, all I have seen is statements without meat or proof.

Kindly, provide history and facts that are agreed on by all.

thanks, looking forward to reading such.

 

[FrankLawrence]

This is about as plausible as blaming St. Augustine for the Reformation on the ground that​

• he provided the inspiration for the Augustinian Order;
• Luther was an Augustinian friar;
• Therefore, what Luther did & thought was the responsibility of St. Augustine

• it’s ridiculous, & it not remotely Catholic: because it treats every Protestant, & every one else between Luther & 1973, as a mindless robot. Did their wills & intentions really play no part in the hundreds of billions of events which took place between Luther’s time & the decision in 1973, & which led to that decision ? As though there were no Catholics at the same time; & as though there were no other wills than Luther’s, or those of Protestants, to lead to it. It is a gross oversimplification to say that events at this or that date were caused by one particular person living centuries before.

The thesis in the heading is as reasonable as blaming St. Peter for paedophilia in the clergy - it proves far too much, since reasoning as slack as that in the post would also “prove” that the Apostles are responsible for the rise of Hitler. Why not ? Such absurdities are no more disgusting or incredible than the logic connecting Luther with events 430 years & 4,000 miles distant from him.

Do you understand what Sola Scriptura means as a doctrine ?

I showed the flow of my logic. You just don’t like your precious doctrine of demons to be placed under attack. Protestantism is still around, and all over the world, longer than 430 years later, and further than 4,000 miles away. Thus, so are its effects on societies that embrace it, much more societies that have foundational documents designed in its nature. Yes, I know what Sola-Scriptura means. It means that people will determine religious doctrine, based on their own comprehension skills which are easily influenced by pride, prejudice, and false teachings. It flies in the face of Proverbs 3:5 and 1 Timothy 3:15, while providing an example of 2 Peter 3:16. It is the #1 doctrinal cause of Christian division. It is a heresy of the grossest kind, revolving around prideful rebellion. St. Augustine has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.
As for the other issue about when the Church first condemned abortion, you can read it in the Didache(sic?), which comes straight from the Apostles.

 

[OriginalJS]

The Church did not really legislate against abortion until the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. It has always been my understanding that general public resistance to abortion increased as the danger of pregnancy was lessened by medical advances, particularly after germs and effective anesthesia were discovered in the mid 19th century. By 1900 it was more dangerous to have an abortion than to have a baby.

 

[OriginalJS]

I showed the flow of my logic. You just don’t like your precious doctrine of demons to be placed under attack. Protestantism is still around, and all over the world, longer than 430 years later, and further than 4,000 miles away. Thus, so are its effects on societies that embrace it, much more societies that have foundational documents designed in its nature. Yes, I know what Sola-Scriptura means. It means that people will determine religious doctrine, based on their own comprehension skills which are easily influenced by pride, prejudice, and false teachings. It flies in the face of Proverbs 3:5 and 1 Timothy 3:15, while providing an example of 2 Peter 3:16. It is the #1 doctrinal cause of Christian division. It is a heresy of the grossest kind, revolving around prideful rebellion. St. Augustine has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.
As for the other issue about when the Church first condemned abortion, you can read it in the Didache(sic?), which comes straight from the Apostles.

With all due respect do you really believe (1) that lay people should not read the Bible? (2) That lay people who read and study the Bible are near to committing heresy of the grossest kind if they come to a conclusion about what they read? (3) that the Church should forbid lay people to read the Bible and simply tell them what it says? (4) Is the Church wrong to have Bible study classes for Catholics?

And, aren’t you overlooking the fact that many of the founding fathers were Deists and not Christians? Have you read the Jefferson Bible? Have you read Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason?

The basic difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Catholics believe our relationship with God is through the Church; Protestants believe that each person can have a personal relationship with God. I have heard this called the doctrine of the Univeral Priesthood.

For what it is worth, I don’t think there is any church that bases its belief and practice soley on scripture. Every one I have seen implements scripture, tradition, and reason to greater and lesser degrees. For example, I know of none that attempt to follow the rigorous and brutal laws set forth in Leviticus. (Stoning disobedient son etc.)

 

[FrankLawrence]

With all due respect do you really believe (1) that lay people should not read the Bible? (2) That lay people who read and study the Bible are near to committing heresy of the grossest kind if they come to a conclusion about what they read? (3) that the Church should forbid lay people to read the Bible and simply tell them what it says? (4) Is the Church wrong to have Bible study classes for Catholics?

And, aren’t you overlooking the fact that many of the founding fathers were Deists and not Christians? Have you read the Jefferson Bible? Have you read Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason?

The basic difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Catholics believe our relationship with God is through the Church; Protestants believe that each person can have a personal relationship with God. I have heard this called the doctrine of the Univeral Priesthood.

For what it is worth, I don’t think there is any church that bases its belief and practice soley on scripture. Every one I have seen implements scripture, tradition, and reason to greater and lesser degrees. For example, I know of none that attempt to follow the rigorous and brutal laws set forth in Leviticus. (Stoning disobedient son etc.)

You seem to be under the impression that speaking against Sola-Scriptura means that I am opposed to individuals reading the Bible, and that the Catholic Church is opposed to individuals reading the Bible. Nothing of the sort was declared by me or the Catholic Church. The erroneous conclusions you’ve drawn from your inability to comprehend what I am plainly saying only illustrates my point that written text needs an authoritative interpreter. In answer to your questions:

1. Lay people should read the Bible. God speaks to us as individuals, through the pages of Scripture. However, lay people do not have the right to declare heretical doctrines based on their own interpretation of Scripture. 2. If their conclusion CONFLICTS with the official Church teaching, and they trust their conclusion over the Church teaching, then they are guilty of heresy, the degree of the heresy depending on the degree of their differing and the significance of the issue. Nevertheless, heresy is heresy and should all be condemned. 3. Do you think the Catholic Church forbids lay people from reading the Bible? If so, whoever told you that bears false witness against his neighbor, either intentionally or out of ignorance 4. The Church wants to lead people into a proper understanding of Scripture and absolutely should have Bible studies.
   As for the religion of the founding fathers, who is to say that they would not have all been Catholic if not for Martin Luther? That is the logical conclusion, although I must admit is by no means an infallible conclusion. At the very least, there would not have been rival Protestant groups necessitating the need for the “establishment clause.”
   Your idea of what the basic difference between Catholics and Protestants is shows a lack of understanding about Catholicism. Catholics also believe that each person can have a personal relationship with God, through Jesus Christ. It is a personal relationship that The Holy Spirit strengthens through the Church and the Sacraments, as well as prayer, fellowship, virtue, good works, and yes, reading the Bible, too. While that personal relationship sustains our faith, under the Guidance of The Holy Spirit, it does NOT mean that we can claim that we have received personal revelations from God that conflict with established Church doctrine, and that we are right, and 2,000 years of consistent Church teachings were wrong. You seem to be implying that the Catholic Church is claiming that the Mass and Sacraments are the ONLY channels through which an individual’s relationship with God can be created or enhanced. That is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches. If I misunderstood what you were intending to say, once again, my point is proven that written words need an authoritative interpreter.
   We are under grace, not the Mosaic law.
   All of Protestantism, to my knowledge CLAIMS Sola-Scriptura. I would agree with you, however, that none of them actually are Sola-Scriptura, and that even Sola-Scriptura is not “Bible alone,” but more accurately is based on individual comprehension skills, combined with pride, prejudice, and false teachings, in addition to traditions of man that resulted from those imperfect and highly fallible comprehension skills, as well as some Sacred Tradition(ie. the New Testament Canon.)
   So, I hope that clears things up for you. Never trust a Protestant to tell you what the Catholic Church believes.

 

[Steve40]

I don’t think sola scriptura is responsible for infanticide as much as relativism is responsible for both.

Is sola scriptura the father of relativism in western civilization? If the Scriptures are a basis for morality then it could be argued that a free interpretation of this moral basis without authoritative (from God) understanding could make morality relative.

The only constant Is the Holy Spirit. The same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit which is given to us in the Magesterium of the Church sola scriptora is relative to your own understanding and as a moral standard is relativistic.

The father of moral relativism in our times may very well be sola scrptura.