Sola Scriptura -- what is the actual authority?

[Michael16]

I’ve had some time to reflect upon the Sola Scriptura question.

Now, SS is a fine theory. In principle. But, what we see in the practice of that principle is exactly what happened amongst the Protestant rebels. Namely, violent and vilifying arguments, strife and schism over individual interpretations that would have been prevented by an authority that could define and arbitrate the issues.

By the very nature of the Protestant revolt; such an authority would’ve been unthinkable.

Beyond the exegetical and theological errors of SS; I am repulsed by it when I look at the history of how it played out in practice.

Therefore: I cannot, in good Catholic conscience; accept Sola Scriptura. However you define it.

 

[JonNC]

Therefore: I cannot, in good Catholic conscience; accept Sola Scriptura. However you define it.

I wouldn’t expect you to. Be true to your tradition’s teaching.

Now, SS is a fine theory. In principle. But, what we see in the practice of that principle is exactly what happened amongst the Protestant rebels. Namely, violent and vilifying arguments, strife and schism over individual interpretations that would have been prevented by an authority that could define and arbitrate the issues.

Well, Catholics have not been violence free over history. I’m not sure one can blame that on hermeneutical principles.

 

[Michael16]

I realize, to my chagrin; I hadn’t fully thought out my statement on Sola Scriptura. I wanted to edit; but I already saw you were replying. I wanted to let you speak first before I corrected myself.

SS As a theory:

Allow me to define SS as I see it. Essentially, I see it as a principle which says: To hell with authority; I’ll interpret as I see fit. As well as throwing out tradition; as if you can have Sacred Scripture without a tradition. That’s a patent impossibility. And, this is important; Sacred Scripture never refers to itself as the only infallible guide to faith and morals.

No matter how you say it; you can’t make Sacred Scripture day that.

Now, I’m disappointed with your counter point; Jon. To me, it seems you’re saying: You guys do it, too. As if it justifies the failure of SS.

 

[Michael16]

I’m sorry. Please check out my above reply. I tried to tag you.

To further add: At least among Catholics; when the Magisterium declares upon an issue; we accept it and obey. The benefits of authority in action.

 

[mcq72]

I am repulsed by it when I look at the history of how it played out in practice.

Therefore: I cannot, in good Catholic conscience; accept Sola Scriptura. However you define it.

may we all be repulsed by division and violence over them…with Christian conscience, I can not accept how things played out in practice either due to the opposite of SS, and lack of it, for so long.

a conundrum we be in

 

[mcq72]

To further add: At least among Catholics; when the Magisterium declares upon an issue; we accept it and obey. The benefits of authority in action.

JW’s are very good at this also

 

[Michael16]

I also have to unequivocally say Jon: Upon reflection, I should have said that SS, upon face value; appears to be a fine theory in principle. But once you examine the truth; the demonic deception becomes manifest.

Here’s the other problem, Jon.

You say that SS is just a hermeneutical principle. But, I think we can both agree that hermeneutical principles produce interpretations and interpretations form tradition and doctrine.

But, as we can see that Sacred Scripture never refers to itself as the only infallible guide; we can see how SS fails as a hermeneutical principle. Thus the entire corpus is flawed; except for happy instances of Luther’s acceptance of the Real Presence. Even flawed hermeneutics cannot misrepresent something like that: Which has an unambiguous and straightforward reading that only willful lying could read otherwise.

 

[Michael16]

Mcq, I’m disappointed in you as well. Your counterpoints to my statements on the failures of your leaders is a clear example of my frustration with you guys.

I make a point and your counterpoint is often: You guys do it too. As if pointing out when we fail excuses the failures of your leaders that I was addressing. By doing so, you’re excusing them and evading the charge I laid at them.

Frankly, such counterpoints are immature and unworthy of inclusion in a reasoned debate.

 

[catholicray]

To answer your question, Sola Scriptura is the answer to a question. The question originally posed is who speaks authoritatively and infallibly in matters of faith and doctrine? Sola Scriptura says that God himself is the infallible authority in matters in faith and doctrine, that God has spoken, and that God’s word has been preserved through the power of the Holy Spirit in his scriptures which are the faithful and permanent record of God’s revelation to man. That being said, Sola Scriptura does not cast aside tradition or other authorities, but says that when two or more authorities are in conflict, scripture, because of its nature of being God’s word given to us, holds primacy. Sola Scriptura does not mean that we set aside the Church, or that we set aside tradition, it means that these two things (which are not infallible) are submissive to God and his revealed word.

You say Sola Scriptura does not set aside the Church soooooooooo

When you or if you disagree with what a Prostestant pastor proclaims Scripture is saying or even a fellow Christian…

A.) How do you determine authoritatively for yourself what God’s Word truly says when there is conflict?

B.) How can you confirm that your adherence to Gods Word is correct rather than a Pastor or fellow Christian.

C.) How do you know that your position concerning what God truly says in His Word is in union with His Church?

Let’s start there. Looking forward to your response.

 

[Wannano]

Mcq, I’m disappointed in you as well. Your counterpoints to my statements on the failures of your leaders is a clear example of my frustration with you guys.

I make a point and your counterpoint is often: You guys do it too. As if pointing out when we fail excuses the failures of your leaders that I was addressing. By doing so, you’re excusing them and evading the charge I laid at them.

Frankly, such counterpoints are immature and unworthy of inclusion in a reasoned debate.

“At least among Catholics; when the Magisterium declares upon an issue, we accept it and obey.”

My understanding is that the Magisterium in recent history has declared that non-Catholics Christians are to be considered brothers and sisters in Christ and as such are to be shown respect.

 

[Michael16]

I’m sorry if I spoke unfairly. I thought I was speaking charitably and reasonably.

 

[Michael16]

I wasn’t meaning to show disrespect. Again, I’m sorry if I did not.

 

[Wannano]

I’m sorry if I spoke unfairly. I thought I was speaking charitably and reasonably.

Saying SS is demonic deception and that someone who reads a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist can only be a willful liar is not very charitable.

You seem to be demanding that everyone comes to your point of view immediately. I think the intent of having a non-Catholic section in the forum is to enable charitable dialogue between people having different understandings.

 

[Michael16]

Granted. I guess I have to explain the truth to Protestant error like I would someone misunderstanding a more mundane point?

 

[Michael16]

Okay; I understand now. Explain like I would to someone who’s honestly misunderstood something and be nice about how I do it?

 

[Wannano]

Okay; I understand now. Explain like I would to someone who’s honestly misunderstood something and be nice about how I do it?

What you see as Protestant error is not something the other person has willfully decided to believe in order to perpetuate untruth. Protestants who have differing ideas than what the CC has established, if they are in fact wrong, are honestly misunderstanding something.

 

[mcq72]

As if pointing out when we fail excuses the failures of your leaders that I was addressing.

Not sure how abhoring violence over any differences by any church excuses either one.

I would think one could reflect that nothing happens in a vacuum, that reformers and their sola’s didn’t just pop up for no reason, and why did they occur in western church and not eastern ?

Not trying to excuse any negatives of reformation…but understanding any negatives of the church culture they came out of seems reasonable for any true and humble understanding of historical events.

Takes two to tango.

 

[goout]

goout:

And the other elephant in the room is that you are applying Christ’s “leaven” address to the authority of the Catholic Church while neglecting to consider that it might more properly be applied to protestantism.

Well an elephant to whom ever has an ear to hear, to whom is humble enough to apply to their own church.

Protestants are very aware of the elephant, to the tune of many many churches, denominations.

Only one church more than any other claims no leaven to beware off .
.

So your use of the passage only applies to the Catholic Church…not to Protestantism?
Ok, how do you justify your selective application this passage?

 

[goout]

goout:

And did I just read you that Christ was obedient conditionally?
You’re going to respond that Christ was obedient to the Father, not to the Pharisees.
But the unavoidable fact is that Christ was incarnate as an obedient and observant Jew, and the Jews are The chosen people.

Straw man you made…Christ obeyed those in seat of Moses, but not in their error, right?

Peter obeyed Sanhedrin, but not in their error, right ? ( he continued to preach against Sanhedrin wishes )…

So Christ was obedient to all, conditionally, when they were in accord with Father.

So your attempt to distance Christ from full immersion in the human community he was born into fails.

?

And yet if we assume you believe that Christ is the Son of God incarnate…

you have the unavoidable fact that those he disputed with and lived among crucified him, and he went willingly. Your attempt to portray Christ as “conditionally obedient” fails any conception of Christian obedience.

Obedience is rooted in adherence between people, not disputed words and concepts.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

JW’s are another modern day invention – like Protestant Churches, lacking any sort of pedigree/unbroken chain back to the apostles.

And since they lack a legit pedigree, nobody should take their claims of authority seriously.