Sola Scriptura...

[pocohombre]

Whoops! Now you went beyond what the words say. Why?
Maybe to you it’s a big step, but it’s Biblical.
In Acts 15, the Church decided that circumcision wasn’t required, and that gentiles can be members of the Church without following the Mosaic rules.
But who decided this? A council made up of the Apostles and Bishops.

So a wife is not equal to the husband ? Not denying differing roles. …Further, scripture is very, very careful to say that besides the apostles and elders, it pleased the whole church, and the letters were sent in the name of the brethren, and apostles and elders

It doesn’t say he has no authority. This is a false dichotomy.

Gee, thank you. You still limit the quality and certainty of what the Lord can say to the individual.

He can. However, when He does, it is accomplished along with miracles to demonstrate that the Authority was given in an exceptional way. Such as with St. Paul.

So a lay person has to work harder to prove the Holy Spirit illumined him on a matter while the ordained priest does not ?

Yeah. So did Korah.
Jude 1:11 Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, and perish in Korah’s rebellion.

Timing is everything. Korah was too early to cry for universal priesthood that was promised them . The CC is too late in still declaring it is not here yet, that it is only one tribe (Levites) that are functioning priests today. Like I said, never before in man’s history has such power been given to a disciple. You are not a universal priest if you still need an intermediary to the Intermediary, for even the basest of things (illumination on the gospel, much less forgiveness and remembrance rites).

 

[Randy_Carson]

So a lay person has to work harder to prove the Holy Spirit illumined him on a matter while the ordained priest does not ?

Neither are infallible. Catholics do not believed that priests are infallible or guided by the Holy Spirit any more than anyone else.

Poco, whether you ultimately become a Catholic or not is between you and God, but seriously, if you want to engage in dialogue with Catholics intelligently, read the Catechism and argue against what we ACTUALLY believe and not these caricatures of our faith.

If you don’t want to buy one, here it is online with a cool search feature:

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Just read it…or at least reference it before posting, okay?

 

[JonNC]

Jon-

Two questions:

1. What do you think of Congar’s idea that Tradition is a mode of transmission rather than a separate body of content?
2. What, specifically, would be your disagreement with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium as Catholics understand them? It seems to me that you value both…

 

[pocohombre]

You also understand that the Magisterium is here to protect the faithful from departing from the faith that was once for all delivered to all the saints? Right?

The shepherd and the sheep are both under the Shepherd. Both need shepherding, and certainly the two are not above the Written word. He leads both to green pastures.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The shepherd and the sheep are both under the Shepherd. Both need shepherding, and certainly the two are not above the Written word. He leads both to green pastures.

What do Catholics *really *believe?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**SECTION ONE
“I BELIEVE” - “WE BELIEVE”

CHAPTER TWO
GOD COMES TO MEET MAN

ARTICLE 2
THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION**

74 God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”:29 that is, of Christ Jesus.30 Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.31

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, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32

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, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;33
• 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."35 Indeed, "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 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39

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. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

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

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

III. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HERITAGE OF FAITH

The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church

84 The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."46

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

 

[JonNC]

Jon-

Two questions:

1. What do you think of Congar’s idea that Tradition is a mode of transmission rather than a separate body of content?
2. What, specifically, would be your disagreement with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium as Catholics understand them? It seems to me that you value both…

On the first, I am not familiar enough to comment, but it sounds interesting.

On 2, I do value you both. I value you and see as indispensable the role of the Church in determining doctrine. The disagreement I have, that Lutherans have, is the holding of Tradition as equal to scripture, particularly things that are not clear in scripture, or are not necessary to salvation. So, as Lutherans, we hold as doctrine the Theotokos. It is clear and obvious in scripture, and completely interwoven in the Incarnation, the Person of Christ. The Assumption, OTOH, while not opposed to scripture, is not clear there, either, and is not particularly important in the way Theotokos is. Do you see the distinction, even if you disagree?

Jon

 

[pocohombre]

OK, let’s consider that.
What did it take to demonstrate the grafting in of gentiles? Church councils, miracles, dreams to St. Peter.
Where do you find these sorts of things about the reformers?

So now we can judge and say there is no divine inspiration, dream, calling in them ? I think for some of these there indeed was a "mystical’ experience with the Lord. A still small voice qualifies for "mystical’ , even the utterance of “Read”.

ANYONE can claim they’re “grafted in.” For it to be considered true, God must say so.

Well, not sure he has to announce it. He may just do it. It can be judged, but by faith choose and use your yardsticks wisely- history, tradition and reigning scripture

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The shepherd and the sheep are both under the Shepherd. Both need shepherding, and certainly the two are not above the Written word. He leads both to green pastures.

See Randy’s post. And please actually read before responding.

 

[JonNC]

But how does Scripture say the following, or make known the following…“Tradition…you are way over the line…follow what I (Scripture) says on the matter…”

Obviously, scripture doesn’t. No Lutheran would deny the role of the Church. In fact, it is the Church that practices sola scriptura in holding teachings and doctrines accountable.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

So a wife is not equal to the husband ? Not denying differing roles.

Just as the Bishops and the Bishop of Rome have different roles.
Nobody says they’re not “equal” in the sense of importance to God.

Was Moses equal to Miriam? To Aaron? To Korah?

Yes … and no. He had a different role to be sure.

…Further, scripture is very, very careful to say that besides the apostles and elders, it pleased the whole church, and the letters were sent in the name of the brethren, and apostles and elders

Yes!!! Good point!!!
The Apostles and Elders (Bishops) who made the determination represented the whole Church.

Wait … you don’t think that the whole Church was actually present, do you?
They weren’t in the Coliseum, or even the Temple, after all.

Gee, thank you. You still limit the quality and certainty of what the Lord can say to the individual.

Not at all. It’s just that I don’t assume something when it’s not in scripture or tradition. That’s eisegesis.

So a lay person has to work harder to prove the Holy Spirit illumined him on a matter while the ordained priest does not ?

Nope. The Holy Spirit will “work harder” to show that.
Scriptures already show that 1) the Apostles were confirmed in their miracles and 2) the Apostles taught that they could and should pass on their Authority through the “laying on of hands.”

Timing is everything. Korah was too early to cry for universal priesthood that was promised them .

St. Jude brings the warning up-to-date in the NT.

The CC is too late in still declaring it is not here yet, that it is only one tribe (Levites) that are functioning priests today.

Re-read Numbers. It wasn’t the Levitical priests that Korah was rebelling against. In fact, he WAS a Levite, and all those involved with him were Levites.

Also, the Church certainly agrees with the concept of a universal priesthood of all believers. However, there are different gifts and responsibilities between the universal and the ordained clergy. Hmmm … didn’t St. Paul say something about that?

Like I said, never before in man’s history has such power been given to a disciple. You are not a universal priest if you still need an intermediary to the Intermediary, for even the basest of things (illumination on the gospel, much less forgiveness and remembrance rites).

Sure. That’s why ALL protestants agree on doctrinal issues.

 

[Randy_Carson]

On the first, I am not familiar enough to comment, but it sounds interesting.

On 2, I do value you both. I value you and see as indispensable the role of the Church in determining doctrine. The disagreement I have, that Lutherans have, is the holding of Tradition as equal to scripture, particularly things that are not clear in scripture, or are not necessary to salvation. So, as Lutherans, we hold as doctrine the Theotokos. It is clear and obvious in scripture, and completely interwoven in the Incarnation, the Person of Christ. The Assumption, OTOH, while not opposed to scripture, is not clear there, either, and is not particularly important in the way Theotokos is. Do you see the distinction, even if you disagree?

Jon

Explicit v. implicit?

But Jon, is infant baptism so clear or is it more like the Assumption…?

What are your thoughts on the passage I posted just above from the Catechism in #280 & #281?

 

[pocohombre]

Neither are infallible. Catholics do not believed that priests are infallible or guided by the Holy Spirit any more than anyone else.

Didn’t say they were infallible. Please follow dialogue, though lately it is a tornado of posts. All I said was:
Quoteost #274
“Where does it say the Holy Spirit can not ordain and choose His own ?”
From Faherknows best :“He can. However, when He does, it is accomplished along with miracles to demonstrate that the Authority was given in an exceptional way. Such as with St. Paul.”
From me, “So a lay person has to work harder to prove the Holy Spirit illumined him on a matter while the ordained priest does not ?” post 277
But thank you .CC has explained well ex cathedra etc., and that she alone can interpret scripture in finality.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

So now we can judge and say there is no divine inspiration, dream, calling in them ? I think for some of these there indeed was a "mystical’ experience with the Lord. A still small voice qualifies for "mystical’ , even the utterance of “Read”.
Well, not sure he has to announce it. He may just do it. It can be judged, but by faith choose and use your yardsticks wisely- history, tradition and reigning scripture

No, we can’t judge that.

HOWEVER, and this is a big however, IF they are going to have Authority at all over others, it needs to be confirmed by God, either directly (by miracles so that others can see the confirmation), or indirectly in the manner that God has established (laying on of hands, breathing the Spirit).

 

[JonNC]

Explicit v. implicit?

But Jon, is infant baptism so clear or is it more like the Assumption…?

What are your thoughts on the passage I posted just above from the Catechism in #280 & #281?

I think infant baptism is far more explicit than some claim. Whether it be the choice of the term “all nations”, or that of “whole households”, along with evidence from the early Church. Additionally, there is nothing that contradicts infant baptism. I’m not sure of much of anything in scripture regarding the Assumption. And I’d think you would agree that Baptism is far more important.

86 seems ok by me. How is that squared with papal infallibility?

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Didn’t say they were infallible. Please follow dialogue, though lately it is a tornado of posts. All I said was:
Quoteost #274
“Where does it say the Holy Spirit can not ordain and choose His own ?”
From Faherknows best :“He can. However, when He does, it is accomplished along with miracles to demonstrate that the Authority was given in an exceptional way. Such as with St. Paul.”
From me, “So a lay person has to work harder to prove the Holy Spirit illumined him on a matter while the ordained priest does not ?” post 277

Yes, I was addressing #277, and I know you did not say anything about infallibility. That was just clarification on my part.

But thank you .CC has explained well ex cathedra etc., and that she alone can interpret scripture in finality.

But there is much more to it than that:

II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think infant baptism is far more explicit than some claim.

Me, too.

86 seems ok by me. How is that squared with papal infallibility?

Jon

Jon, divine revelation is highway that the Church travels from here to heaven. Infallibility is the guard rails that prevent the Church or the Pope from leaving the pavement.

With the help of the Holy Spirit, the Magisterium and the Holy Father defend the faith and help the rest of us to stay on the right path.

Consequently, the pope cannot simply propose ex cathedra something NOT contained within the faith already delivered. He is constrained by all that has been delivered and defined before him. Infallibility LIMITS the Pope; it does not give him unlimited authority.

 

[JonNC]

Me, too.

Jon, divine revelation is highway that the Church travels from here to heaven. Infallibility is the guard rails that prevent the Church or the Pope from leaving the pavement.

With the help of the Holy Spirit, the Magisterium and the Holy Father defend the faith and help the rest of us to stay on the right path.

Consequently, the pope cannot simply propose ex cathedra something NOT contained within the faith already delivered. He is constrained by all that has been delivered and defined before him. Infallibility LIMITS the Pope; it does not give him unlimited authority.

It could be argued that infallibility *ex cathedra * itself was not contained within the faith already delivered. It certainly isn’t extant in scripture, explicitly or implicitly.

Infallibility LIMITS the Pope; it does not give him unlimited authority.

And, by our understanding, sola scriptura limits personal interpretation.

Jon

 

[pocohombre]

No, we can’t judge that.

HOWEVER, and this is a big however, IF they are going to have Authority at all over others, it needs to be confirmed by God, either directly (by miracles so that others can see the confirmation), or indirectly in the manner that God has established (laying on of hands, breathing the Spirit).

The quagmire. Is it that cut and dry ? Some broad interpretations:-the Greek seek a sign (before believing) , blessed are thy who believe and have not seen, we are to do greater things than these, Lord did we not do these miracles yet you cast us out ?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The quagmire. Is it that cut and dry ? Some broad interpretations:-the Greek seek a sign (before believing) , blessed are thy who believe and have not seen, we are to do greater things than these, Lord did we not do these miracles yet you cast us out ?

You’re confusing authority with impeccability.