Sola Scriptura - unifier?

[TULIPed]

Ok thanks. So in that example, how did it bubble up through the Magisterium? For example - did the Cardinal in charge of Marian Theology commission a subcommittee to study the matter and deliver a report (a la “The Name of the Rose” - a crazy good book/movie in my opinion btw)? The report was then effectively a “motion” which was somehow approved by a senior group and submitted to the Pope?

I’m guessing at some point in the process, some group studying the matter would have reviewed scriptural support for the “motion” in my example, no? I’m just curious how the link between scripture and tradition is formalized tactically.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Ok thanks. So in that example, how did it bubble up through the Magisterium? For example - did the Cardinal in charge of Marian Theology commission a subcommittee to study the matter and deliver a report (a la “The Name of the Rose” - a crazy good book/movie in my opinion btw)? The report was then effectively a “motion” which was somehow approved by a senior group and submitted to the Pope?

I’m guessing at some point in the process, some group studying the matter would have reviewed scriptural support for the “motion” in my example, no? I’m just curious how the link between scripture and tradition is formalized tactically.

As I understand, it’s an ancient belief within the Catholic Church, dating back at least to the 4th century; it’s just that until it was formally declared in 1950 it was not considered an infallible teaching of the church. It wasn’t drawn up in back rooms in 1949.

I think I’ve read at some point that infallible declarations are generally not made when the Church decides that something is a true, but rather that when something that had been accepted as true came under fire and the Church felt the need to put the question to rest. So the point of that declaration in 1950 was not to institute a new teaching, but to protect an old one.

 

[MT1926]

I’m guessing at some point in the process, some group studying the matter would have reviewed scriptural support for the “motion” in my example, no? I’m just curious how the link between scripture and tradition is formalized tactically.

I found this article that might help answer some of your questions…

Can Dogma Develop? | Catholic Answers Tract

Here is a great article on Mary’s Assumption through history…

Assumptions About Mary | Catholic Answers | Catholic Answers Magazine

They’re not detailed step by step of what occurs but thought it might answer some questions you have.

God Bless

 

[TULIPed]

Thanks MT - very interesting article. I am still curious about the actual blocking and tackling on clarifying dogma - i.e. how/if committees/teams are formed, voting rules, etc., but this article does pose some interesting concepts. For example:

“To put it another way, the pope and the bishops are not inspired the way the authors of Scripture or the prophets were. To make a new definition, to clear up some dogmatic confusion, they first have to use human reason, operating on what is known to date, to be able to teach more precisely what is to be held as true. They cannot teach what they do not know, and they learn things the same way we do. They have no access to prophetic shortcuts—they must delve by study into the riches of the words God has already given us.”

It’s interesting to me that when the Reformation occurred - the percentage of the general population that could read or would’ve had access to the Bible had to have been very, very small. Certainly this was true relative to today - or even the last couple of centuries.

It feels to me like much of what formed and spurred the Reformation forward was the concept of accountability. Setting aside for the moment whether or not anyone in the Church needs/should be held accountable and how that’s to happen, does it make sense that this was a key contributor at least?

 

[MT1926]

I am still curious about the actual blocking and tackling on clarifying dogma - i.e. how/if committees/teams are formed, voting rules, etc., but this article does pose some interesting concepts.

Off the top of my head I don’t know. I’ll try to do a bit more research and see if I can come up with something for you.

It feels to me like much of what formed and spurred the Reformation forward was the concept of accountability. Setting aside for the moment whether or not anyone in the Church needs/should be held accountable and how that’s to happen, does it make sense that this was a key contributor at least?

I can’t really argue one way or the other. I haven’t really studied the Reformation in detail. It seems to me there is a lot of statements made at what started the reformation but it seems to me these are just opinions or people repeating what they heard without ever researching it themselves.

All I can say is I read through Luther’s 95 Theses and his main objects seemed to be forgiveness of sins. He seems to oppose confession to a Priest. Doesn’t like Purgatory and says quite a lot against indulgences. He never really hones in on his desire for accountability in any of these.

Seems to me if Luther’s main goal was accountability the reformation never would have happened. Because to be quite honest it’s really not that hard to come to common ground on a great majority of his 95 points.

God Bless

 

[sallybutler]

Sola Scriptura leads to some interesting problems. One of my favorites is whether or not one can have instrumental music during church services. The Church of Christ says no because there are none in the new testament.

 

[mcq72]

Because the definition of private means belonging to a particular person or group.

So is that what St. Peter meant ? Of course "people/persons interpret, many form groups around false private interpretation. He is not talking about angels or non human.

You don’t think that those who prophesied in truth, in the Holy Ghost, were not persons, or part of a “group” (Jews) ?

How do you come to the conclusion that private means interpreting without the Holy Spirit.

Because that is what Peter implied.

 

[mcq72]

Not to mention how do you know in the first place if the Holy Spirit is present or not?

Yes, the question I have not answered yet. Everybody wants a magic bullet, someone or something that is definitive in authority, someone who is responsible for the truth, for us.Everything neat and tidy and feel good.

The Lord knew we need help here also , and definitely has not left us orphaned. Yet sometimes I feel that what He has provided is not enough for some. They want a “visible king”, just like the Jewish people did, forsaking strict reliance on invisible Jehovah /Jesus. Yet each of us has that daily challenge, to be in the Spirit or in the flesh. To be filled or not to be filled.

 

[mcq72]

If scripture is truly alone then nothing happens.

what do you mean by scripture alone ? Is that like the book drops out of the sky, or that there are no preachers, not of tradition but preachers of the Word? Does that mean there is no Holy Spirit to illumine, no Body, no church ?

In the end someone’s “tradition” has to tell us what scripture is teaching us.

So true for many people, but not all. For sure preaching is needed for some to come to life, yet some come to life by reading scripture. Christ gives new life and at some point one must be weaned of others food, and take on meat, the Word for oneself…else what is a disciple if he is not to grow and mimic others more mature in the body.

Someones else’s “tradition”, is Christ and the apostles teaching…His Word…at best the church is the pillar of truth, but would not call that “tradition”

Therefore in the end the final “norm” is the one doing the interpreting, the tradition not the written words on the page.

well, as others have said welcome Jw’s and Mormons and Jonestown heritage etc. but they are also welcome to be wrong in SS paradigm also

The written words are the tradition, The Word.

I would capitalize Word , not tradition.

 

[MT1926]

So is that what St. Peter meant ? Of course "people/persons interpret, many form groups around false private interpretation. He is not talking about angels or non human.

You don’t think that those who prophesied in truth, in the Holy Ghost, were not persons, or part of a “group” (Jews) ?

Do you even realize that you keep typing but you really aren’t saying anything that actually answers any of my questions? You just keep stating things as if they are facts or mean something?

How can I answer what St. Peter meant when you don’t even reference a verse?

Because that is what Peter implied.

First off implied where? Second is that a definitive interpretation of the Holy Spirit or is it your own?

 

[MT1926]

Yet sometimes I feel that what He has provided is not enough for some.

Not real sure what you are trying to imply here. But the Scriptures make it crystal clear that The Lord left us a living, breathing Church, and yes I agree She is not enough for some.

Yet each of us has that daily challenge, to be in the Spirit or in the flesh. To be filled or not to be filled.

Since you are unwilling to give me straight forward answers I’ll just have to interpret this to mean you believe you have the Holy Spirit guiding you whenever you choose to believe it.

Just curious does your pastor preach using these obscure messages?

In my experience people that are unwilling to give straight forward answers do so because they have no firm grounding in their theology. They tend to talk using unclear messages so no one can point to what they say and say but you said this here.

If you ever feel like having a straight forward back and forth discussion I would really enjoy learning something about your faith, but the way you present makes it impossible to understand what you actually believe.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

what do you mean by scripture alone ?

It was my response to Jon to try to get him to explain what the Tradition of norm of tradition is. I was pointing to you need a tradition to interpret the scriptures for something to happen. If Scripture is alone and no one is reading or interpreting the words on the page then nothing happens.

Someones else’s “tradition”, is Christ and the apostles teaching…His Word…at best the church is the pillar of truth, but would not call that “tradition”

What does pillar of truth mean to you then? Is the church pillar of all of Christ’s truth or just some truth?

well, as others have said welcome Jw’s and Mormons and Jonestown heritage etc. but they are also welcome to be wrong in SS paradigm also

But who are you to claim they are welcome to be wrong? They claim to use S.S. the same as you, so what makes you right and everyone else wrong?

And please don’t come back saying so you think they’re right. That is so childish when people do that.

God bless

 

[mcq72]

Never said they were wrong. After all how could I say their definition (of tradition") is wrong when they never gave it in the first place

Actually, on a quick read I did not see the word tradition, nor magisterium in the Lutheran article/ confession that Jon posted. However, it is quite succinct to include elements of what you consider to compromise these two words.

The Lutheran article states that beyond foundation of apostles etc, you have "all teachers and other writings, ancient and modern, and the “universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church”, and it’s confession in council with its creeds, up to Athanasius Creed , all subjected to Scripture to show the “manner” of preserving apostolic doctrine. So I see church father writings, and writers up to his present day, councils, creeds, a universal body of Christian faith preserved in an by the church.

So it is there for one to see the elements of what can be considered be part of “tradition”.

So, “a rose is a rose is a rose”, or as a CC (Charlie Chaplin) movie put it, "The meaning of anything is merely other words for the same thing. " “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” The elements, the essence, of “tradition” is there.

Not sure why the Lutheran article left the word “tradition” out. I can only surmise the reformers perceived abuse of the word by their CC. So why use a word that has become a source of division, a word that also signified something negative more often than not when used by Jesus. Only once does it seem to have a positive connotation when used by St. Paul in one of his epistles. Unfortunately, in my opinion, that misinterpeted verse has helped the CC to form the capital t in tradition, to which reformers reject.

So, you and others are correct in not seeing tradition explicitly worded or defined by the confession (Lutheran) posted. Yet P’s have also been correct when posting that SS, Bible Alone, does not negate the benefits of what they consider to be tradition of the church when subject to the norm of Writ, even as per their confession posted.

 

[TULIPed]

Let me put it this way: Imagine if only lawyers, judges, and members of congress could read the US Constitution (or any other governing document for that matter). Would it be possible - in that extreme example - for those that could read it to take advantage of those that couldn’t (even allowing that many or most of them were believers)? Would not making the Constitution accessible to more people tend to hold the governing more accountable to the governed? Said another way - is the Catholic Church better off with its laity able to read and study the Bible?

I know you guys have major issues with Sola Scriptura - and I also am willing to admit that there are things that I’m not sure I understand about it. Can’t we agree though that some good things came from it for everyone? After all - St. Paul said it best in Romans 8, “All things work for good…”

 

[MT1926]

Actually, on a quick read I did not see the word tradition, nor magisterium in the Lutheran article/ confession that Jon posted.

Jon just posted a section of that article. He is the one who stated “norm of Tradition” and pointed me to the article. Which is how this back and forth started 3 days ago. I’ve lost count how many times I’ve asked for the word tradition is defined and all I get in return is the run around like you give me here.

I honestly don’t know why people are unwilling to state they don’t know. All of the run around I get or changing the subject when I ask questions is my main reason for remaining Catholic. She is willing to give me an in-depth well thought out answer when I ask a question. Vague answers meant to belittle the person asking the question are of no benefit to anyone.

Not sure why the Lutheran article left the word “tradition” out. I can only surmise the reformers perceived abuse of the word by their CC. So why use a word that has become a source of division, a word that also signified something negative more often than not when used by Jesus. Only once does it seem to have a positive connotation when used by St. Paul in one of his epistles. Unfortunately, in my opinion, that misinterpeted verse has helped the CC to form the capital t in tradition, to which reformers reject.

Like I said vague opinions that add nothing to the conversation.

So, you and others are correct in not seeing tradition explicitly worded or defined by the confession (Lutheran) posted. Yet P’s have also been correct when posting that SS, Bible Alone, does not negate the benefits of what they consider to be tradition of the church when subject to the norm of Writ, even as per their confession posted.

Maybe you an Jon need to have a conversation and see if you guys agree on the meaning of SS.

God Bless

 

[sallybutler]

And how correct is your interpretation of the Constitution? Or do you rely on the opinions of lawyers, judges, and legal scholars to understand what you read?

 

[lanman87]

Sola Scriptura leads to some interesting problems. One of my favorites is whether or not one can have instrumental music during church services. The Church of Christ says no because there are none in the new testament.

The church of Christ holds to Solo Scriptura not Sola Scriptura. One of the great quotes from Alexander Campbell is that he wanted to read the Bible “as if it had never been read before”. The Campbells and other Restorationist tossed out all the creeds and councils and traditions that are not explicitly found in the New Testament. Sola Scriptura does not do that.

 

[TULIPed]

Of course. And I hope they are ethical and honest people. This isn’t always the case unfortunately - even on relatively straightforward concepts like say - the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (which I know isn’t in the Constitution).
If memory serves, there were a whole bunch of lawyers and judges in the South that interpreted that rather straightforward piece of legislation rather…creatively, no?

 

[mcq72]

Said another way - is the Catholic Church better off with its laity able to read and study the Bible?

St. Augustine certainly thought so of scripture, having “such surpassing authority throughout the whole world…easy for everyone to read…accessible to all men…to find truth” Confessions book 6 ch5

 

[mcq72]

And how correct is your interpretation of the Constitution? Or do you rely on the opinions of lawyers, judges, and legal scholars to understand what you read?

good point but the nature of the Word and the nature of the believer have a different dynamic than the constitution and its citizens. For instance, do you rely on your salvation (your interpretations of the bible) on the opinion of others, howbeit even the church ? I would hope not solely. A believer is one who is born again, who has the indwelling of the Holy Ghost (the same "author’’ of scripture). That would be like having writers of the constitution dwelling in us. At some point every soul must make saving truth (that he firsts hears from others or apostolic writings) his own. Predigested food from others only goes so far. Paul says we need to eat the meat for ourselves. digest it for ourselves, and grow. Paul i believe also states that God puts His spirit in us, to bear witness to our spirit, that we are sons of God. I would think He could also bear witness to us about many things. Even tradition bears witness to this strengthening all.