Sola Scriptura - unifier?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zynxensar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
40.png
goout:
Now, you will resort to talking about documents of some kind that are written down and prove you had a grandmother, and that’s fine. But you will avoid the fact that the literary proof for your grandmother is only as good as the family it is sourced in and that it continues to live in. Or did your grandmother’s life story fall from the sky already written…
Click to expand...
I haven’t made any claims about my grandmother.
Here’s the question: Is this your own opinion?
If it is, just say so.
Click to expand...
Is what my opinion?
What exactly is unclear?
 
Fair enough. Thank you for clarifying that. Another question for you - can you think of any part of Catholic doctrine or tradition as formulated and taught by the magesterium that is in direct conflict with Holy Scripture? (What would be helpful here would be an excerpt from the Catholic Catechism that’s in direct conflict with scripture.)
 
TULIPed said:
Fair enough. Thank you for clarifying that. Another question for you - can you think of any part of Catholic doctrine or tradition as formulated and taught by the magesterium that is in direct conflict with Holy Scripture? (What would be helpful here would be an excerpt from the Catholic Catechism that’s in direct conflict with scripture.)
Click to expand...
Tradition and Scripture are one seamless garment, living in the Church, right now.
If one these three is separated from the other, you have…separation.
 
TULIPed said:
Another question for you - can you think of any part of Catholic doctrine or tradition as formulated and taught by the magesterium that is in direct conflict with Holy Scripture?
Click to expand...
No, because such conflict does not exist
 
I didn’t read all the replies, but in answer to the original question, I guess true sola scriptura would mean encountering the Bible in a state of complete ignorance, meaning, that I had had absolutely no exposure to Christianity whatsoever before stumbling upon a Bible, and so all I had was me and the Bible with no preconceived notions. In this sense, has sola scriptura ever been truly lived out? Of course not. We are led to our Christian faith by others. We adopt some of their biases and we develop some of our own. What really distresses me about sola scriptura is the first word, sola. I’m so small, full of blindspots and biases. But God? He’s infinite, vast, deep, and glorious, so much more than I can take in or comprehend by myself. I can’t fully know him by myself; I can’t do it sola. None of us can, and none of us really do.
 
Thank you for your patience in going through this exercise with me. I just wanted to explore the “demonic” concept a bit with you.

Think for a moment about when “Sola Sciptura” was formulated in the 16th century. Almost nobody on earth (relative to today) - with the exception of very well educated clergy and lawyers - could read the Bible. First, it was written in Latin. Second, nobody had any Bibles as there was no way to produce them efficiently.

I wish more of my Protestant brothers and sisters would take the time to read the Catholic Catechism. Almost every line in the CC is in English - and every other spoken language on earth - and extensively footnoted with scripture. (For any of you Catholic scholars out there, I’m curious as to when the CC was translated to English and if it was footnoted as it is today back in the time of the Reformation?)

Likewise, I think my Catholic brothers and sisters would find a quick read of some of the documents of the Reformation interesting. What you’d find there is that “Sola Scriptura” has nothing directly to do with the “rejection of tradition”. It doesn’t mean we reject authority (in fact, every Reformed Protestant covenants to accept and submit to the authority of their church when they join it). It does mean that any tradition or authority can’t conflict with scripture.

Yes - we’re separated. Yes, we have large differences theologically. Yes, we Protestants think we can read and understand the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit. But my guess is that if you took every Reformed Protestant and every Catholic and put them in a room and had them all recite the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed, you’d have a whole bunch of Christians nodding in violent agreement.

I guess it’s not much fun to stand around agreeing with each other though. Carry on.
 
Last edited:
TULIPed said:
(For any of you Catholic scholars out there, I’m curious as to when the CC was translated to English and if it was footnoted as it is today back in the time of the Reformation?)
Click to expand...
The Catechism didn’t exist back then.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church originated with a recommendation made at the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in 1985. In 1986 Pope John Paul II appointed a Commission of Cardinals and Bishops to develop a compendium of Catholic doctrine. In 1989 the Commission sent the text to all the Bishops of the world for consultation. In 1990 the Commission examined and evaluated over 24,000 amendments suggested by the world’s bishops. The final draft is considerably different from the one that was circulated in 1989. In 1991 the Commission prepared the text for the Holy Father’s official approval. On June 25, 1992 Pope John Paul II officially approved the definitive version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church . On December 8, 1992 Pope John Paul II promulgated the Catechism with an apostolic constitution.
Click to expand...
From this link…

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...bout-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church.cfm

as with many of the documents of the Church they weren’t brought into existence until such a time as She felt it was necessary. Whether it be to combat a heresy, to give official documentation against an objection, or because she felt the time had come that her members were ready for more information.

Hope this helps,

God Bless
 
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, a/k/a The Roman Catechism, was published 1566. It was intended primarily for parish priests. I am not sure when it was first translated into English, the free online version I have was translated in the 1920s.

It is understandable. I’m informed, not a scholar.
 
Last edited:
The CCC is a good example of how the Living Church, which is the living Body of Christ, unifies itself with Scripture and Tradition in a seamless garment without rupture.
 
I think it’s a great tool. Easy to read, well footnoted and organized.
 
Wannano said:
In post 163 you ask whether you are to assume the current Pope Francis knows more than other Popes in past centuries.
Click to expand...
Believing that one Pope knew more about an specific topic than the current Pope does not mean that I do not respect him as the Vicar of Christ.
Wannano said:
I have been under the impression that as a Catholic you are actually required to accept and believe in the current Popes teaching and leading of the Church.
Click to expand...
I’m not required to agree with the Pope’s opinion on non dogmatic topics.
 
For anyone interested in knowing how the Church addresses Divine revelation:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

[75] "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel,
…

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
  • orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching,
    …
  • in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.34
. . . continued in apostolic succession

[77] "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

[78] This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "

79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church:
…

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

[80] "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

[81] " Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
 
Last edited:
LostSheep7 said:
My English is horrible, sorry for not being able To formulate my sentence properly
Click to expand...
No, your English is fine, no problem…i was being a little bit picky…but would we then say Trent does not explicitly document that SS is demonic doctrine ?

Not sure it even says anything implicitly about SS, but for sure if you don’t believe in CC decrees (via Writ or tradition), you are anathema/excommunicated…now that could cover SS, but also a lot of other things, such as an atheist, or an orthodox…for sure they were addressing reformers, but not as demonics, in person or belief/ doctrine.
 
Last edited:
The Church does not call any of humanity demonic specifically, as the language is inflammatory and implies ill-will that is probably not present in the vast majority of people. Demons are ill-willed toward God and human beings and it wouldn’t be accurate to cast that ill-will on to separated Christians, or cafeteria Catholics for that matter.
False doctrines are called for what they are, but demonic is not language that I am aware of the Magisterium using.
 
Thank you.

Upon reading the CC teaching on “revelation”, and “apostolic tradition” that you posted, I see the seedbed, the necessity for, SS.
 
Last edited:
Not sure what you are saying.
The passage specifically rejects sola anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top