Sola Scriptura...

[PRmerger]

And that is the whole issue with SS.

Besides the fact that it is self refuting, as its main tenet “All things we believe must be found in the Bible” can not be found in the Bible.

 

[Novocastrian]

There is only one definition of the Real Presence, Novo, so I am not sure what you are asking here.

Not true. Contrast transubstantiation with the Lutheran definition.

 

[Novocastrian]

Besides the fact that it is self refuting, as its main tenet “All things we believe must be found in the Bible” can not be found in the Bible.

My honest opinion is that this is the strongest prima facie argument against sola scriptura, that Roman Catholics are more persuasive when they deploy it, and that Protestants ought to focus their responses upon this question above all others.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re right. But I and they can tell them what a better definition would be!

Are you not being, then, a magisterium to them?

How is what you are proposing any different that what you reject in the Catholic Church?

That is, you reject an authority telling you “This is what Scripture means!”…

yet here you are proposing that you are an authority to another Christian entity telling them, “This is what SS means!”

 

[Novocastrian]

Are you not being, then, a magisterium to them?

How is what you are proposing any different that what you reject in the Catholic Church?

That is, you reject an authority telling you “This is what Scripture means!”…

yet here you are proposing that you are an authority to another Christian entity telling them, “This is what SS means!”

Well, it’s different because I think I’m right. The same reason that you think the teaching of the Roman Catholic bishops is not simply equivalent to the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox bishops.

 

[PRmerger]

Not true. Contrast transubstantiation with the Lutheran definition.

Are Lutherans saying that they have the authority to speak for Christendom when it proclaims its doctrine of consubstantiation?

(BTW: we were talking about the RP, which is a different animal than trans/con substantiation.)

 

[Novocastrian]

Are Lutherans saying that they have the authority to speak for Christendom when it proclaims its doctrine of consubstantiation?

(BTW: we were talking about the RP, which is a different animal than trans/con substantiation.)

Yes.

No it isn’t. Both believe in real presence; transubstantiation is an attempt to define it dogmatically.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, it’s different because I think I’m right.

So you reserve for yourself what you deny the Catholic Church–the authority to tell others what is the correct way to understand something?

Really?

The same reason that you think the teaching of the Roman Catholic bishops is not simply equivalent to the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox bishops.

What the EO bishops teach I have no problem with. They believe everything the CC professes, save for the infallibility of the pope.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes.

Then they, too, are reserving for themselves what they deny the CC.

Astonishing!

No it isn’t. Both believe in real presence; transubstantiation is an attempt to define it dogmatically.

So what’s the problem then? There still is one definition of the Real Presence: Christ is wholly and substantially present in the Eucharist.

 

[Novocastrian]

So you reserve for yourself what you deny the Catholic Church–the authority to tell others what is the correct way to understand something?

Really?

I don’t deny them the authority. I deny that they’re using it properly.

What the EO bishops teach I have no problem with. They believe everything the CC professes, save for the infallibility of the pope.

1. Not true.
2. Even if it were the case that this were the one exception, that would still make them heretics in terms of the First Vatican Council, which pretends to be Oecumenical.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t deny them the authority. I deny that they’re using it properly.

How is the CC using its authority improperly?

1. Even if it were the case that this were the one exception, that would still make them heretics in terms of the First Vatican Council, which pretends to be Oecumenical.

I don’t think you have read our Catechism, Novo.

“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”–818

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Are you saying the Orthodox do not have a different practice of infallibility?

I don’t think they even have a word for it. I have never heard a claim to infallibility form the Orthodox.

It’s not my concern because I am not one of them. I am not one of them because I believe them to be in error. Clearly, then, it isn’t relative.

You think they are in error and they think you are in error.

Sola Scriptura goes like this:

A does not equal B
B does not equal C
C does not equal D
A does not equal B, C, D.
B does not equal A, C, D.
etc.

It defies logic and the Law of Non-Contradiction!!!

So this final rule and norm can be exercised by anyone as they see fit. And they can all call it the same but have a different meaning.

This alone, practically was the biggest factor in me not being ever comfortable in my Protestant days. I got tired of everyone individuals opinion on what they thought Scriptures meant. I didn’t care for that anymore… I want to know what it **really **means. At least the Catholic Church is humble enough to admit that some passages are just too hard to interpret and has not made a definitive decree on them. There’s wiggle room as long as you stay in bounds. I am held accountable, not running amock getting to define what I think and making an authority out of my own accord.

[bibledrb]1 Timothy 3:15[/bibledrb]

 

[rinnie]

I have been thinking about the idea of Solla Scriptura and was last night reading an article on another website (not catholic) which agreed with the principle. The basic idea was that the Bible being the inerrant word of God is the source to turn to when discerning whether something is true or not…biblical or unbiblical. The author explained that the idea wasn’t against traditions per se (ie ones that had been passed down through the generations orally etc) more, the bible should be the final word on whether or not to follow said traditions.

Sure in some sense this means that the Catholic Church believe in sola Scriptura, comparing everything to the Bible to check whether its biblical or not (note I am not saying it has to be IN the bible specifically just not to go against the Bible). Obviously if indeed the Catholic Church is Christs one true church and is therefore protected against the evils of hell, I can’t imagine the following happening but just for the sake of illustration say something was “taught” that was completely against the Bible - I am guessing catholics would know this was the case and not believe it. Thereby in someway following sola Scriptura.

Take converts for example, they join the Catholic Church based on their understanding of the bible and belief that the Catholic Church is the only church to follow the true biblical traditions…?

So maybe the difference is not in sola Scriptura per se…but interpretation of the bible/understanding. For example Protestants say praying to Mary is unbiblical, catholics say it is biblical. Both are basing their beliefs and understanding on the Bible…

Thoughts?

The problem here is Christ did not tell us the bible was the pilar of all truth, He told us the Church is the Pilar of all truth.

So if you want the truth of Christ you don’t really even need the bible. But you need the Church.

 

[aidanbradypop]

The problem here is Christ did not tell us the bible was the pilar of all truth, He told us the Church is the Pilar of all truth.

So if you want the truth of Christ you don’t really even need the bible. But you need the Church.

This train of thought just blows my mind.

 

[Novocastrian]

This train of thought just blows my mind.

I don’t think it’s actually that controversial, although they way it’s being used here is. Surely we can agree that a group of Christians were stuck on a desert island without a single Bible they could still pass on the Gospel to their children, baptize them, and teach them the stories of the Faith in Israel and the Church?

 

[aidanbradypop]

I don’t think it’s actually that controversial, although they way it’s being used here is. Surely we can agree that a group of Christians were stuck on a desert island without a single Bible they could still pass on the Gospel to their children, baptize them, and teach them the stories of the Faith in Israel and the Church?

Most certainly!

 

[GaryTaylor]

This train of thought just blows my mind.

I kinda get the thinking from a perspective if one is a regular at mass, then your being taught scripture in Catholic interpretation, regardless if you realize it or not.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I kinda get the thinking from a perspective if one is a regular at mass, then your being taught scripture in Catholic interpretation, regardless if you realize it or not.

True

 

[JonNC]

Are Lutherans saying that they have the authority to speak for Christendom when it proclaims its doctrine of consubstantiation?

(BTW: we were talking about the RP, which is a different animal than trans/con substantiation.)

No we are not, since we reject consubstantiation.

I agree with your second point. The doctrine of the RP we share. How we express it differs.

Jon

 

[steido01]

Steid, always Pork but Pie can be a bit chattie. She is a wonderful artist and painted my avatar. Quite a story there for her. Imagine a Wisconsin LCMS girl, raised in a house with two German speaking parents becoming Catholic, falling in love with the Blessed Mother, loves to paint her and looks forward to her weekly hour at Eucharist Adoration. But like I said that is a long story.

Roman Catholic/LCMS marriages certainly seem to be good pairings - my own wife and I can personally attest to that!

Do you believe then that the doctrinal position above on the LCMS website then conflicts with the confessions?

I do find the LCMS leadership a bit confusing at times. I referenced to Jon in the past that both the current LCMS President and a previous one referred to the Written Word of God having 66 books. This conflicts with the confessions too. It also confuses my LCMS relatives.

Conflicting? No, not at all. ‘Brief’ and summarizing? Absolutely. Remember, LCMS doctrine is not dependent on any abridged explanation from a website, but on the Confessions as a right reflection of Holy Scripture. The website says as much, and that was the point of my last post.

So then we take the question to the Confessions, and we see that Lutheranism does not name a canon. This is where we must pause and bear in mind that the purpose of a Lutheran bible is quite different that the reason the RCC gave for establishing a canon at Trent. The purpose of a Lutheran canon “isn’t to just have some final Table of Contents on which to draw up a dogma and so that we can excommunicate everyone who refuses to stop asking the historical questions, it’s to have a rule of faith for settling doctrinal disputes and the like.” - Source.

So Lutheran communions have a responsibility to use the books that have historically been disputed by the church catholic in a way that puts the books that more clearly articulate Christ’s message (i.e. the Gospels) at the center of all doctrine and dogmas. Simple enough to me. In the case of the LCMS, a 66-book bible has generally been the norm ever since it switched from German to English. Yet the Synod acknowledges the importance and usefulness of the other 7-8 books that have historically been a part of the church catholic, in varying degrees. This is coherent with early Lutheran theologians, including Luther, and a sizable portion of the pre-Tridentine Catholic Church:

Quoting Chemnitz from the Examen Concilii Tridentini on the antilegomena: “Does this mean that these books are simply to be rejected and condemned? We are by no means seeking this. Then of what use is this dispute? I answer: To make sure the rule of faith or sound doctrine in the Church. For the ancients held that the authority of the Church dogmas rests solely on the canonical books. It was held that only by the authority of the canonical books could those things be established about which any dispute arose. The rest of the books which Cyprian calls ecclesiastical, Jerome apocryphal, were to be read in the Church for the edification of the people, but not to prove the dogmas of the Church… No dogma which does not have a certain and clear foundation in the canonical books dare be constructed from these books if there are no other proofs and confirmations in the canonical books. But what is said in these books must be explained and understood according to the analogy of what is clearly set down in the canonical books. There can be no doubt that this is the meaing of the ancient Church. But the Council of Trent will hear nothing of this necessary and most true distinction of the ancient Church, subverts and abolishes it, for the reason that (as my Andradius says) they do not want to be confined to these narrow limits; they do not want to be so destitute of all other helps that they must derive their faith solely from the canonical Scriptures.”

I asked President Harrison directly about the canon in a Twitter Q&A several months ago. I half-joked about CPH combining our new translation of the Apocrypha with the 66-book Bible in one printing. After all, it used to be printed together before our Synod switched to English. He joked that I was a “rascal,” and referred me to Franz Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics Volume 1. I’m still parsing my way through the hardcover. Martin Chemnitz’ Examination of the Council of Trent is equally as useful, IMO. Chemnitz (affectionately known in Lutheran circles as “Second Martin” ), explains in much more detail how the RCC’s view and purpose of ‘canon’ changed at Trent, among other topics.

All that said, I did take a “what religion are you test” some time ago and I was 100% Catholic and 98% LCMS, then Orthodox. SO close, only 2% away. If you could straighten out this how many books are scripture thing someday, I may inch up to 99%.

Would that more laypeople on both sides of the Tiber could understand just how close our communions are on so many issues and beliefs!