Sola Scriptura

[praxis62]

Dear Nun: Thanks again for the reply. I am new to this whole blog, thread, concept, and I hope I am not making a mess of it. To be in communion means that there is agreement on the doctrinal issues, and of course, the primacy of Peter. There are Orthodox Churches that are in communion with Rome,(sometimes referred to as Uniate Churches, although this term is looked down on today by many theologians) some of them were present at the recent conclave and liturgies that celebrated B16. Most are not. The “not” group would include the Russian and Greek Orthodox Church, probably the majority of Orthodox Churches are in this catagory. We pray that will change some day, the sooner the better.
Different religious traditions can use the same terminology but mean very different things by it. As far a Lutherans go, they do not share the same concept of "Real Presence’ that the Catholic Church has. The Lutheran understanding sees real presence (I use sm caps to distinguish between the two, not as a gesture of triumphalism) as being something that is in effect while the congregation is gathered together worshipping, and the Eucharistic liturgy is being celebrated. After the liturgy is over the real presence “dissapates” for lack of a better word. When I was in the ELCA we would just pour any remaining wine out into a flower bed behind the Church, and toss the bread to the birds. Seen from their point of view it makes perfect sense. Martin Luther liked the term “consubstantiantion” to describe his understanding of the presence of Christ. The Catholic understanding is that the “Real Presence” in the the host, is “truly and substantially” the Body of Christ, and it remains so. That why the Catholic Church has elaborate tabernacles, Eucharistic Adoration, Expositon, Euchatistic Processions, etc. For us, God is not just passing through, transitory. (I’m not trying to be crude, I don’t know how else to say it.) The Methodist Church also has a doctrine of real presence, but it is very different from ours. “Transubstantiation” is the word that is generally used by Catholic theologians to “describe”-desiginate might be better (as if anyone could describe a mystery like that) the Catholic understanding. The substance (the inner reality of the bread and wine) has changed, but not the accidents, i.e., the appearances. The Orthodox Church doesn’t use the “T” word, their understanding is the same as ours, but as already stated, they do not agree with us on the issue of Papal Primacy, and therefore are not in communion with the Catholic Church, except for certain Orthodox Churches already mentioned.
I don’t think youve muddled your thread at all. These are very complicated questions and almost any attempt to explain them is going to fall short somewhere.
I will keep you in my prayers while you continue your journey into the Church, even after for that matter.
God Bless You
Prax

 

[praxis62]

Malachi4U:

Jesus founded a Church, the Catholic Church, His body, to be with us and to have His authority on earth. He promised to be with His Church till the end of time.

The Bible was written, cannonized, invented and declared inspired by the Church Christ founded. Without the Churches authority the Bible is no more valid then the Koran or Book of Mormon, etc. It is the authority of Christs Church that TELLS us the Bible is inspired and which version.

Just look at what Satan has done to various Protestant versions of the Bible written without authority. Look at the JW Bible, the LDS Bible, Joseph Smith Bible, Luther Bible, Geneva Bible, AKJV, KJV, NKJV, NIV, etc…:whacky: Every homosexual king, heritic Catholic monk, publisher wanting to make a buck, or some dishonest kid starting his own church can write a Bible and sell it to someone. All these Protestant versions have various number of books and verses. Meanings change based on the theology, political leaning or money making potential. It is only through the Church that we have a safe guard to preserve Sacred Scripture as proven throughout history. If God does not change then why do Protestant Bibles and their meanings and thier miss-self-interpretations at every whim and fancey? Why do they see fit to re-form Gods word to fit thier own opinions and not Gods?

The Bible is a tool of the Church just like a building or a monk, etc. It is sad that some people worship the tool (as if it were a graven image) and not the mechanic God gave us to lead our souls and prepare us to follow Him and instruct us in His word.

A book is no better then those who write it. The Church is guided and protected by the God who founded her. Her Bible is inspired. The others may be close, but they contain error. Some more then others.

Why would I want to read a Bible written by a schismatic in violation of the book itself? I’ll obey Scripture and remain LOYAL to Christ and His body, His Catholic Church.

Malachi4U
I think you are absolutely right. Scripture is a precipitate of the lived experience of the early Catholic Church, and it must be understood in the context of the Church that birthed it, if it is to make proper sense. Did you hear about the guy in Kansa who says he is the actual Pope? He has a following of 10 people, but that is ok, he has his own “inspired” understanding of the bible, and that is all he needs. These guys are coming out of the woodwork.
Praxis62

 

[EA_Man]

The burden of proving Sola Scriptura doesn’t rest on the Protestant. All major branches of Christendom—Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant recognize the authority of Scripture. And they all deny the continuance of canonical revelation.

That being the case, the Protestant doesn’t even have to show where Scripture itself expressly or implicitly rules out tradition. It is sufficient for him to show that, as a matter of inevitable practice, the appeal to tradition interferes with the authority of Scripture. It subordinates the voice of Scripture to the voice of tradition.

Peace

 

[Nun_ofthe_Above]

**Hi Praxis, **

Thanks for your reply. Thanks also for the explaination. I can certainly see where you are coming from, regarding the above issues.
There is just one thing I would like to clear up, in defence of my recent position concerning the real presence. In the Lutheran Church of Australia, the real presence is automatically assumed to remain, and consecrated hosts are stored to take to those who are sick or in nursing homes,
etc. The bread and wine are disposed of in a respectful manner; however, I have heard people from other churches on other Lutheran threads make mention of the differing way****s in which the host is treated. I suppose this just goes to show that it really depends which ‘branch’ you follow.
Thanks also for your support concerning my posts**. I really don’t think I have expressed my view very well; and despite what it may look like, I do believe in the Catholic Church. I just see the Bible as the sole rule of faith, with the Catholic Church as the sole deposit of faith; if you understand what I mean…they don’t need to be mutually exclusive… I have a feeling this could be misunderstood by some…ah well can’t please all of the people all of the time…heheeh, actually, I’d settle for pleasing some of the people, some o the time.**

Thank you for your prayers. You are in mine also.

Peace and Love

 

[chrisb]

EA_Man:

The burden of proving Sola Scriptura doesn’t rest on the Protestant. All major branches of Christendom—Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant recognize the authority of Scripture. And they all deny the continuance of canonical revelation.

That being the case, the Protestant doesn’t even have to show where Scripture itself expressly or implicitly rules out tradition. It is sufficient for him to show that, as a matter of inevitable practice, the appeal to tradition interferes with the authority of Scripture. It subordinates the voice of Scripture to the voice of tradition.

Peace

Grace and Peace be with you,

I think you have a very good point. Tradition falls once it is found to promote liberty which is not found in Scripture but if it does not, it is a liberty which is part of the liberty we share in Christ.

Peace.

 

[DaveD]

EA_Man:

The burden of proving Sola Scriptura doesn’t rest on the Protestant. All major branches of Christendom—Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant recognize the authority of Scripture. And they all deny the continuance of canonical revelation.

That being the case, the Protestant doesn’t even have to show where Scripture itself expressly or implicitly rules out tradition. It is sufficient for him to show that, as a matter of inevitable practice, the appeal to tradition interferes with the authority of Scripture. It subordinates the voice of Scripture to the voice of tradition.

Peace

Tradition does not subordinate the voice of Scripture. Actually it allowes the voice of Scripture to be heard! Christ left His Church with his friends:

He ordained them:
“As the Father has sent me even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “recieve the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any they are retained.”
John 20:21-23

Where else did God breath on someone? The word inspired that we use in referrence to the Holy scriptures means God Breathed.

He commissioned them:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
Mt 28:19-20

Who is The Lord Speaking to here? The Apostles.
Who is to teach? The Apostles
Jesus was not referring to the average hillbilly with a King James Bible.

Without the Apostles there is no Church. He gave them authority to pass on their ordination:

“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Mt 18:18

Without the Apostles and their successors there would be no scripture, no ordination, no Church!

The Apostolic tradition protects and interprets Scripture so it can be heard. Without it we are left as we can demonstrate from the professions of faith with many competing doctrines that all claim to be scriptural truth. They disagree on essentials like, salvation, the trinity, the Church, Baptism, The divinity of Christ, Faith, Works, There is no sound faith without the Living Church.

Since Apostolic tradition allowes the voice of scripture to be heard, we should listen to the numerous denunciations of schizm that we find there. Like, one example, the book of Jude.

 

[praxis62]

EA_Man:

The burden of proving Sola Scriptura doesn’t rest on the Protestant. All major branches of Christendom—Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant recognize the authority of Scripture. And they all deny the continuance of canonical revelation.

That being the case, the Protestant doesn’t even have to show where Scripture itself expressly or implicitly rules out tradition. It is sufficient for him to show that, as a matter of inevitable practice, the appeal to tradition interferes with the authority of Scripture. It subordinates the voice of Scripture to the voice of tradition.

Peace

EA_Man
Thanks for the reply. I don’t see how a principle as important as Sola Scriptura could fail to be found in scripture. Presumably all of the great truths of the faith are found there, at least in seed form, why not this one?
The question is not does scripture rule out tradition, scripture is tradition, it is just the written form of it. Scripture and Tradition are two braids of the same rope. Once scripture was established, by the Church, i.e., Body of Christ-indweldt, guided, by the Holy Spirit, it became normatitive, but because the Church said so. The bible is a gift of the Church to the Christian religion. The Bible did not pull itself up by its own boot straps. The Church pre-existed the bible. The letters of Paul attest to the existence of the Church prior to the formation of the bible, or the writting of the first scripture. The whole concept of the Bible presupposes the Church.
We can search the bible from one end to the other and we will not find an index of authorative works. The works that constitute our bible origionally existed as independent authographs circulating in different religious communities, that had to compete for a place in the sun against a whole array of other works, e.g., the Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospel of Mary, the Diatessaron, etc. It took time for these other works to fall from acceptance. It also took time for the currently accepted “canonical” works to become established. This was a gradual process, that would have been impossible without the Church. The canon did not win general acceptance until the fourth century. The term “New Testament” is not found until late in the second century. The Book of Revelation had a bumpy ride to acceptance in the Eastern Churhes. Its acceptance was still being debated into the 9th, 10th century in the Eastern Church.
Your right when you say Scripture is normative, but it is so, because the Church says it is so. The authority of scripture grows from, and depends on, the authority of the Church: No Church, no bible.
Peace

Praxis62

 

[But_for_Grace]

I must say that I believe that both are necessary to a more or less equal degree. If the Church forsakes the scripture than it forsakes Christ, but if scripture is taken without the Church and her teachings than many misguided teachings arise (I think of Marcion and Arius)

 

[EA_Man]

Your objection rests on two or three related assumptions:

1. different denominations are undesirable (i.e. God would not allow it.)
2. God has provided a method or mechanism that guards against such “disunity”.
3. The Roman Church does not suffer from this internal strife since it is the repository of this unifying mechanism.

You’re using your own denomination as the standard of comparison, and then pointing the finger at the “schismatics.” This assumes the very claim at issue. As a Protestant, I do not regard the Roman Church as the standard. If I did, I would be Catholic! I regard the Roman Church as just another denomination, and hardly the best.

God put up with a wide diversity of sects and schools of thought in first century Judaism. We read of Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, Essenes, Zealots, etc…Yet God never saw fit to install an infallible Jewish Magisterium in order to prevent this “disunity”. So your objection is based on nothing more than a guess as to what God is prepared to permit.

It also doesn’t appeal to any of God’s revealed purposes in Scripture. The precedent of God’s former dealings with Israel goes against the Catholic claim. If we find all this diversity and dissension under the OT dispensation, why assume that the NT economy must operate according to a contrary set of priorities? Wouldn’t the Catholic rationale apply to the OT church? If Christians require the services of a living Magisterium, wouldn’t the Old Covenant community be under the same necessity? Yet it’s clear from the Gospels that none of the rival parties spoke for God in any definitive sense. The priesthood was the only faction with any institutional standing under the Mosaic Covenant, and its members were frequently and fundamentally mistaken in their interpretations.

DaveD:

He ordained them:

“As the Father has sent me even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “recieve the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any they are retained.”

John 20:21-23

Where else did God breath on someone?

Genesis 1:30
And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

Genesis 2:7
the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Genesis 6:17
I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.

Genesis 7:15
Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark.

Genesis 7:22
Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.

 

[Fiat]

EA_Man:

God put up with a wide diversity of sects and schools of thought in first century Judaism. We read of Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, Essenes, Zealots, etc…Yet God never saw fit to install an infallible Jewish Magisterium in order to prevent this “disunity”. So your objection is based on nothing more than a guess as to what God is prepared to permit.

Dear EA_Man:

You say that God “put up with a wide diversity of sects.” Are you suggesting that God approved of this wide diversity? This seems odd given the fact that God used diversity to punish humankind in the first place, to-wit: The Tower of Babel.

Likewise, Jesus clearly criticized the Sadduccees. (Had you gone to mass this morning, you would have read this in the Gospel reading.) Therefore, to suggest that God “put up” with sects as though He were approving them seems to counter the gospel witness.

Even among the “diversity,” the groups never approved of one another, did they? I seem to recall much tension between the Jews and the Samaritans who, by the way, would have considered themselves completely Jewish, I suspect.

In light of this, your first observation that God would disapprove of disunity seems right on!

In Christ
Fiat

 

[praxis62]

EA_Man:

Your objection rests on two or three related assumptions:

1. different denominations are undesirable (i.e. God would not allow it.)
2. God has provided a method or mechanism that guards against such “disunity”.
3. The Roman Church does not suffer from this internal strife since it is the repository of this unifying mechanism.

You’re using your own denomination as the standard of comparison, and then pointing the finger at the “schismatics.” This assumes the very claim at issue. As a Protestant, I do not regard the Roman Church as the standard. If I did, I would be Catholic! I regard the Roman Church as just another denomination, and hardly the best.

God put up with a wide diversity of sects and schools of thought in first century Judaism. We read of Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, Essenes, Zealots, etc…Yet God never saw fit to install an infallible Jewish Magisterium in order to prevent this “disunity”. So your objection is based on nothing more than a guess as to what God is prepared to permit.

It also doesn’t appeal to any of God’s revealed purposes in Scripture. The precedent of God’s former dealings with Israel goes against the Catholic claim. If we find all this diversity and dissension under the OT dispensation, why assume that the NT economy must operate according to a contrary set of priorities? Wouldn’t the Catholic rationale apply to the OT church? If Christians require the services of a living Magisterium, wouldn’t the Old Covenant community be under the same necessity? Yet it’s clear from the Gospels that none of the rival parties spoke for God in any definitive sense. The priesthood was the only faction with any institutional standing under the Mosaic Covenant, and its members were frequently and fundamentally mistaken in their interpretations.

Genesis 1:30
And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

Genesis 2:7
the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Genesis 6:17
I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.

Genesis 7:15
Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark.

Genesis 7:22
Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.

Thanks for the Reply

Different denominations is not the issue, Truth is.
God has provided an mechanism to guide us, The Church.
The Roman Catholic Church obviously does have its internal divisions, but it also has the charism of the gift of infallibilty to guide it. And yes, the Catholic Church is the standard for comparison.
I was not aware that Pharisees, Sadduces, Zealots were mentioned in the OT. I do know that Jesus had some of his harshest words reserved for these same groups, and it is impossible to read the OT without seeing God’s concern for right belief, and right conduct.
None of this means that all truth resides in the Catholic Church.Neither, the Pope, or the Catholic Church in general is an infallibility machine. Vat II clearly that this is not the case, nor does it mean that God’s salvific will does not work outside of the Cathoic Church, or that only Catholics are saved, or that just being a Catholic will get you saved, however it does state that the Church fullness of Christian revelation “subsits” in the Roman Catholic Church.
Peace
Praxis62

 

[EA_Man]

praxis62:

Thanks for the Reply

Different denominations is not the issue, Truth is.
God has provided an mechanism to guide us, The Church.
The Roman Catholic Church obviously does have its internal divisions, but it also has the charism of the gift of infallibilty to guide it. And yes, the Catholic Church is the standard for comparison.
I was not aware that Pharisees, Sadduces, Zealots were mentioned in the OT. I do know that Jesus had some of his harshest words reserved for these same groups, and it is impossible to read the OT without seeing God’s concern for right belief, and right conduct.
None of this means that all truth resides in the Catholic Church.Neither, the Pope, or the Catholic Church in general is an infallibility machine. Vat II clearly that this is not the case, nor does it mean that God’s salvific will does not work outside of the Cathoic Church, or that only Catholics are saved, or that just being a Catholic will get you saved, however it does state that the Church fullness of Christian revelation “subsits” in the Roman Catholic Church.
Peace
Praxis62

Denominations are the issue when one of the chief Catholic complaints about Sola Scriptura is that it leads to “all those denominations”.

If the Church is the means by which Truth is preserved then how is it that the Church has internal divisions?

Further, if the Church is the Protector of Truth then how is it that “all truth” does not reside there?

Of what benefit is the Magesterium (as opposed to Sola Scriptura) if that “great interpreter” of God’s Word was not able to prevent the the mass defections of the Reformation, The Great Schism, etc…?

Where is this charism of Infallibility?

Having said in Unam Sanctam (1302) that there was no salvation outside the church, Vatican II did an about-face, by declaring that salvation did occur outside the church (Nostra Aetate).

Likewise, the Pope is said to be infallible whenever he speaks ex cathedra. This claim quickly becomes circular reasoning. For whenever a Pope is caught in an error, the original claim is salvaged by saying that he was not speaking ex cathedra. Even though Popes decreed one doctrine or another, and did so with the “fullness of Apostolic Authority”, not being aware that later Apologists would claim that they needed to use the phrase “ex cathedra” to make their declarations “infallible”.

So he’s infallible–except when he’s fallible, and he’s fallible–except when he’s infallible. So the claim of infallibility is made unfalsifiable by rendering it unverifiable as well. Because it can’t be verified, it can’t be disproved. That is convenient, but unconvincing.

Peace

 

[DaveD]

EA_Man:

Your objection rests on two or three related assumptions:

1. different denominations are undesirable (i.e. God would not allow it.)
2. God has provided a method or mechanism that guards against such “disunity”.
3. The Roman Church does not suffer from this internal strife since it is the repository of this unifying mechanism.

You’re using your own denomination as the standard of comparison, and then pointing the finger at the “schismatics.” This assumes the very claim at issue. As a Protestant, I do not regard the Roman Church as the standard. If I did, I would be Catholic! I regard the Roman Church as just another denomination, and hardly the best.

God put up with a wide diversity of sects and schools of thought in first century Judaism. We read of Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, Essenes, Zealots, etc…Yet God never saw fit to install an infallible Jewish Magisterium in order to prevent this “disunity”. So your objection is based on nothing more than a guess as to what God is prepared to permit.

It also doesn’t appeal to any of God’s revealed purposes in Scripture. The precedent of God’s former dealings with Israel goes against the Catholic claim. If we find all this diversity and dissension under the OT dispensation, why assume that the NT economy must operate according to a contrary set of priorities? Wouldn’t the Catholic rationale apply to the OT church? If Christians require the services of a living Magisterium, wouldn’t the Old Covenant community be under the same necessity? Yet it’s clear from the Gospels that none of the rival parties spoke for God in any definitive sense. The priesthood was the only faction with any institutional standing under the Mosaic Covenant, and its members were frequently and fundamentally mistaken in their interpretations.

Genesis 1:30
And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

Genesis 2:7
the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Genesis 6:17
I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.

Genesis 7:15
Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark.

Genesis 7:22
Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.

1. Different denominations are undesirable or Jesus wouldn’t have wanted them to all be one! John Chapter 17.
2. God provided the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Primacy of Peter to guard against such disunity.
3. Where there is Peter there is the Church. The Church has taught the same doctrines faithfully for 2000 years there are currently 1.1 billion members. Not including the schizmatics who are joined to the Church through ther baptism.

“I regard the Roman Church as just another denomination, and hardly the best.” : Then you clearly have not studied Christian History in detail. "To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant. "

The Lord came down to earth chastised the erroneous religious leaders of the day, founded His Church (the pillar and foundation of Truth), with himself as the sacrifice! There is one Altar, one Eucharist, one Baptism, one Church. He said the gates of hell shall not prevail against it and they never will.

Genesis 2:7
the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Yes, thank you. This is my point, the last time God is ever recorded as breathing on someone was at the creation to give him life! The next time he is recorded as breathing on someone was at the creation of the priesthood to give him the Holy Spirit who is the life of the Church.

 

[praxis62]

Lets take it one at a time. First how do you respond to my query regarding your statement about the role of the Pharisees, Saducees, in the Old Testament and God’s attitude toward them?
Next, doctrine develops over time. The Church comes to a fuller deeper understanding of dogma as she is lead by the Holy Spirit.
Infallibility is a charism of the whole Church, it is particularly mainifested in Ecumencial decrees,held under the authority of the Holy Father, and ex catherdra Papal decrees, as you say there have been two. The Holy Father must also make it obvious, in some manner, that he is acting with the express purpose of declaring an Ex Cathedra dogma of the faith. There is also an ordinary infallibility that applies to teaching done by Bishops, evern when scattered around the world if they are speaking with one mind. The different levels of infallibility require different types of assent. Extrodinary infallibility requires a de fide act of acceptance. Less levels require an act of religious obsequium"submission" of the mind and will. This charism of infallibility only applies to matters of faith and morals, and not to matters of geography, etc.
Unanum Sanctum was written at a time when the Church did understand the extent of the “world” and the Churches proclamation of the Gospel to be coextensive. It was assumed that if anyone was outside of the Church it was due to their own rejection of the Gospel, and that willful act had itself excluded them from the salvific effect of the Gospel. Times changed and the Church came to realize that this was not the case. There were in fact whole peoples who had never heard of the Gospel of Christ. How did this all affect them. The Church came to see that although the orgional dogma was true, it had to be understood in a deeper sense. The question was how to do that? It gradually came to be understood that the key was intentional, knowing rejection.So, how about those who hadn’t heard. They were still in God’s friendship, if they were living their lives according to the lights given them by God. In the Gospel of John we read that Christ was in the world from the beginning, working everywhere, making all things. His presence left marks, seeds of wisdom, that later flourished and grew. They are mixed with weeds, and a discerning person, lead by, and responding to the Holy Spirit, would try to seperate the wheat from the chaff and model his life accordingly. He was in the Church, unknowingly to be sure, but he was in the will of God. Karl Rahner later called this the “Anonmyous Christian”. In 1947, prior to Vat II, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated from the Church for insisting that a person had to be a “card carrying Catholic” to be saved. In other words, literally “in the Church”. The history of the doctrine in question is much more complicated than a straight Pre-Vat II, Post Vat II schema would admit. Justin Martyr taught an understanding of this that would fit in very will with Rahner, etc. It has had its ups and downs over the centuries. In case you have not read Newman’s book “The Developement of Doctrine” I would like to recommend it to you. It is very good, as you know written prior to Vat I, and as is well known Newman had reservatons about the proposed dogma of Papal Infallibility. Also Fr. Willam Most has written a paper on Salvation Outside of the Church that you might be interested in. I could email that to you if you are interested. I don’t how much room we are supposed to take up on this site. You seem to be under the impression that infallibility produces statments that are incapable of deeper undrstanding, further organic growth. In doing this you are setting up a straw man. The Catholic teaching on this is much more complex than you portray.
Peace
Praxis62

 

[Nun_ofthe_Above]

**Dear Thessalonian, **

I apologise for not answering you sooner; I seem to have bypassed your post. I hope you can forgive me.

Regarding…

**NunOf,

I like that quote from Irenaus. Those who use it to show Sola Scriptura in the Early Church however neglect a quote a few chapters later in which Irenaus says “if we had not the scriptures we would still have the Church” so the truth would not be lost. He knows the Church is the pillar and support of the truth.**

---

**I agree with what you say; people often quote out of context; but I really don’t believe I fall too far short of this belief…as you may have read in my last post; I believe Scripture is the sole *rule *of faith, and the Church is the sole deposit of faith.
** I have learned from this thread, and am hopefully gracious enough to admit I did get it wrong. I can see where the argument can be made for scripture being Tradition.
I would still like to make it clear that not all who follow Sola Scripture are adverse to traditions; just that they rely more heavily, I guess, on the written tradition of the bible.

**I don’t know of any Lutherans that are in communion with Rome. Some are open to coming to a common understanding where we agree but this does not make them in communion with us.
**
**I believe I addressed this, albeit inadequately, in another post, so I won’t elaborate here; as you have possibly seen what I have written. **
**I apologise once more for my oversight in addressing your post sooner.
**
God bless

Peace and Love

---

---

 

[mikeabele]

The history of the doctrine in question is much more complicated than a straight Pre-Vat II, Post Vat II schema would admit. Justin Martyr taught an understanding of this that would fit in very will with Rahner, etc. It has had its ups and downs over the centuries. In case you have not read Newman’s book “The Developement of Doctrine” I would like to recommend it to you. It is very good, as you know written prior to Vat I, and as is well known Newman had reservatons about the proposed dogma of Papal Infallibility. Also Fr. Willam Most has written a paper on Salvation Outside of the Church that you might be interested in. I could email that to you if you are interested. I don’t how much room we are supposed to take up on this site. You seem to be under the impression that infallibility produces statments that are incapable of deeper undrstanding, further organic growth. In doing this you are setting up a straw man. The Catholic teaching on this is much more complex than you portray.

http://olrl.org/Lessons/Lesson17.shtml:

Has the Catholic Church ever changed its teaching?
No, for some 2,000 years the Catholic Church has taught the same things which Jesus Christ taught.

“The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the Truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15)

So Christ taught both that salvation is only inside the Roman Catholic Church and that it can be outside the Roman Catholic Church as well? For a church claiming to be the ONE, true, Holy, APOSTOLIC church it has many “nuances” that were not taught by the apostles or Christ.

The plain truth is that the Catholic church has taught salvation only inside their walls, under their pope(all the while other bishops may claim that title), and then recently through ecumenism has gone so far as to place all faiths(Islam, Budhism, Hinduism, Voodoo, etc) on the same level, all leading to the same place.

While Christ taught it was through a person(not a building, denomination, or human leader), the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the apostolic faith ladies and gentlemen:

Acts 4:10-12
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

 

[Fiat]

mikeabele:

While Christ taught it was through a person(not a building, denomination, or human leader), the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the apostolic faith ladies and gentlemen:

Acts 4:10-12
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Mikeabele:

Thank you for the quote from Acts. We as Catholics affirm this truth!!! We also affirm Christ’s statements, like this one from the Gospel of Luke:

He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. Luke 10:16 KJV

Because of apostolic succession, we as Catholics know who Christ has sent. Non–Catholics who believe in some sort of “invisible church made up of all “true” believers,” however, have to deal with the problem of finding the “invisible” disciples Jesus sent out to bring into His “invisible church.”

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat

 

[praxis62]

mikeabele:

So Christ taught both that salvation is only inside the Roman Catholic Church and that it can be outside the Roman Catholic Church as well? For a church claiming to be the ONE, true, Holy, APOSTOLIC church it has many “nuances” that were not taught by the apostles or Christ.

The plain truth is that the Catholic church has taught salvation only inside their walls, under their pope(all the while other bishops may claim that title), and then recently through ecumenism has gone so far as to place all faiths(Islam, Budhism, Hinduism, Voodoo, etc) on the same level, all leading to the same place.

While Christ taught it was through a person(not a building, denomination, or human leader), the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the apostolic faith ladies and gentlemen:

Acts 4:10-12
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Mikeabele

The Church has not placed all faith traditions on the same level. It has said that people of different faith traditions are not outside of God’s grace and care. But the fullness of truth is found in the Catholic Church, and all paths are built on the overflow of that fullness, and will lead to it if followed long enough.
Peace
Praxis62

 

[EA_Man]

Fiat:

Because of apostolic succession, we as Catholics know who Christ has sent. Non–Catholics who believe in some sort of “invisible church made up of all “true” believers,” however, have to deal with the problem of finding the “invisible” disciples Jesus sent out to bring into His “invisible church.”

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat

So the members of the visible church (aka Rome) are those “that Christ has sent”?

Interesting.

Tell me are those in the Roman Catholic Church that Christ has sent the same ones that ran the Inquisition, called for the Crusades, and were involved with and helped cover up the sexual abuse scandals?

Hmmm… it seems that you have the same problem of having to find the ‘invisible church’ as the rest of us, doesn’t it?

By their fruits you shall know them.

Peace

 

[javelin]

mikeabele:

So Christ taught both that salvation is only inside the Roman Catholic Church and that it can be outside the Roman Catholic Church as well? For a church claiming to be the ONE, true, Holy, APOSTOLIC church it has many “nuances” that were not taught by the apostles or Christ.

The plain truth is that the Catholic church has taught salvation only inside their walls, under their pope(all the while other bishops may claim that title), and then recently through ecumenism has gone so far as to place all faiths(Islam, Budhism, Hinduism, Voodoo, etc) on the same level, all leading to the same place.

I don’t think that is true at all. Vatican II restated that salvation outside of the Catholic Church is not possible. It then went on to further define what that really means. The assumption by some of what the previous doctrinal statement meant was that only “card carrying members” were “in” the Catholic Church. That assumption was, and is, incorrect. The intention was that no one is saved separate from Christ’s Church (and in 1302, the ONLY church claiming to be Christ’s Church was the Catholic Church), which is His body and the vehicle through which the grace of redemption is given. He says that any branch cut off from the vine (His Body) will perish, and Catholic doctrine fully affirms this.

But we also realize that we cannot limit the Grace and Work of our Lord God. There are some, though most likely few, who can come to know Jesus and be in union with Him through the Holy Spirit without having ever stepped foot in any church. His Body transcends the earthly Catholic Church by virtue of His Spirit which is available to all.

Just look at Jesus’ accounting of the Final Judgement in Matthew. He says the sheep are rewarded because they served Jesus (you fed Me, you gave Me drink, etc.). To which the sheep responded “When did we serve you?”. Jesus replies “Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, you do to me”. Critical point – the sheep didn’t even recognize Jesus! Yet they were saved. Catholic doctrine makes this scenario possible, while most protestant doctrine does not. By keeping the commandments (which Jesus says is how we love Him) and serving others in love (which, again, is how Jesus says we love Him), one is loving our Lord Jesus and availing themselves to the Sactifying Grace that Christ freely offers to all of mankind.

So we do not, and will not, presume destruciton or salvation for anyone – God’s Grace is His alone to give how He sees fit.

Peace,
javelin