Sola scripture from satan

[moondweller]

Nope. Catholics don’t believe in Sola Scriptura or Sola Ecclesia. They believe in the whole of Sacred Tradition, Written and Oral together as a whole.

"Whoever refuses to listen to the Church, refuses to listen to the Lord."In theory maybe, but not according to the above quote. Do you also agree with the above quote? Is not your “Magesterium” your final authority? As a Catholic have you not sworn obedience to its authority?

 

[Metaron]

"Whoever refuses to listen to the Church, refuses to listen to the Lord."In theory maybe, but not according to the above quote. Do you also agree with the above quote? Is not your “Magesterium” your final authority? As a Catholic have you not sworn obedience to its authority?

I don’t see how that quote excludes the Bible as an authority. It isn’t a valid arguement. :coffeeread:

 

[Metaron]

Without an infallible source (such as the Church) I do not know how one can say that stem-cell research or human cloning or contraception and other such things can be wrong. How can you know that Life begins at conception? Catholics can, because they have an infallible source to rule on the subject.

 

[moondweller]

I don’t see how that quote excludes the Bible as an authority. It isn’t a valid arguement. :coffeeread:

You didn’t answer my question. Do you agree with the quote? And is not “the Church” in that quote referring directly to your “Magesterium?” I don’t think he means the whole body of Christ.

 

[b_justb]

You didn’t answer my question. Do you agree with the quote? And is not “the Church” in that quote referring directly to your “Magesterium?” I don’t think he means the whole body of Christ.

Matthew 18:15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

**

“Whoever refuses to listen to the Church, refuses to listen to the Lord.”

**I have no problems with either of these quotes.

 

[Metaron]

You didn’t answer my question. Do you agree with the quote? And is not “the Church” in that quote referring directly to your “Magesterium?” I don’t think he means the whole body of Christ.

I do agree with the quote 100%. The Church and the Bible are in 100% accord.

 

[w_stewart]

Which boils down to sola ecclesia. Bottom line, we all choose our authority, don’t we?

Wrong. The Church + the Tradition + the Bible.

 

[Metaron]

I do agree with the quote 100%. The Church and the Bible are in 100% accord.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Well thanks. From what I have read I think I am more Prima Scriptura myself. But if someone wants to say I am sola scriptura I won’t argue with it. It’s just a title anyway.

My whole intent in entangling myself in this thread was not to argue sola scriptura anyway. It was to challenge the notion this was somehow satan’s greatest lie. Sometimes I think if satan’s involved in anything, its getting people to waste their time arguing Christianity over the internet.

Mozart, if it were not for sola scriptura, we wouldn’t be arguing Christianity over the internet.

 

[moondweller]

I do agree with the quote 100%. The Church and the Bible are in 100% accord.

So they (the Magesterium) assert and you must agree. Is it not true that you cannot disagree with their interpretation of the Bible, hence rendering it and the Bible in one accord? .

Do you then agree with the assertion that we who don’t listen to your Magesterium “don’t listen to Jesus” and, therefore, must be considered apostates and heretics?

Do you then agree that the only way we apostates can “listen to Jesus” is to swim the Tiber and submit to the sovereign authority of your infallible Magesterium?

 

[moondweller]

****I have no problems with either of these quotes.

Matt. 18:15-17 has to do with exercising discipline within a local church assembly. When it says “tell it to the church,” it means the whole, local, church assembly and together, as a church, they are to shun the offender.

It’s not about the infallibility of high ranking officers (Bishops) or their sovereign authority over the people. That concept comes form “sola ecclesia,” not the Scriptures.

 

[w_stewart]

It’s not about the infallibility of high ranking officers (Bishops) or their sovereign authority over the people. That concept comes form “sola ecclesia,” not the Scriptures.

Sola ecclesia is another invention intended to malign the Catholic Church?

The Catholic Church never teaches it.

 

[excaliber]

So if sola scriptura is not of the devil…then why don’t you tell the other 30,000 denominations to just read there bibles and unite together…

Because sola scriptura makes unity impossible.

However even if you tried hard to follow ONLY what was written in the 66 books of the protestant bibles. You still will not have 100 percent of the faith. Because the bible is not supposed to be a "how to build your own church from scratch " book.

 

[kenmd]

However even if you tried hard to follow ONLY what was written in the 66 books of the protestant bibles. You still will not have 100 percent of the faith. Because the bible is not supposed to be a "how to build your own church from scratch " book.

Bingo! There is more to Christianity than just a book. It is clear that Sola Scriptura is a self-defeating philosophy.

 

[b_justb]

Matt. 18:15-17 has to do with exercising discipline within a local church assembly. When it says “tell it to the church,” it means the whole, local, church assembly and together, as a church, they are to shun the offender.

It’s not about the infallibility of high ranking officers (Bishops) or their sovereign authority over the people. That concept comes form “sola ecclesia,” not the Scriptures.

And is this your infallible translation of what these verses mean? Or can there be another view on what these verses mean? If there can be no other view, how did you come to your infallible interpretation? If there can be other views, why offer yours to me now, knowing full well that I disagree with your assessment?

 

[moondweller]

So if sola scriptura is not of the devil…then why don’t you tell the other 30,000 denominations to just read there bibles and unite together…

Because sola scriptura makes unity impossible.

Depends on what you call “unity.” There’s a difference between “unity” and “conformity.” The former can be achieved spiritually without total outward conformity. However, the latter can be totally achieved without true spirituality. For instance, Jesus said to the church at Sardis, “I know your deeds, that you have a name (outward appearance) that you are alive, but you are dead.” When Jesus prayed that we be “one” in Him, He was not praying for outward, religious conformity.

However even if you tried hard to follow ONLY what was written in the 66 books of the protestant bibles. You still will not have 100 percent of the faith. Because the bible is not supposed to be a "how to build your own church from scratch " book.

Well, if one read the Bible he would soon see that it is not men who are building the Church, but Christ Himself. So I agree, the Bible is not a blueprint on how to build a church, but it tells us who and what it is and on what foundation Christ Himself is building it.

I disagree, however, that one cannot know 100 percent of the faith through the 66 Books of the Scriptures. What do we know about Christ and salvation that is not revealed in the Bible?

 

[moondweller]

And is this your infallible translation of what these verses mean? Or can there be another view on what these verses mean? If there can be no other view, how did you come to your infallible interpretation? If there can be other views, why offer yours to me now, knowing full well that I disagree with your assessment?

Giving up all rights to personally interpret Scripture is part of “sola ecclesia.” So is assigning infallibility to men. Sola Scriptura retains the authority of God’s Word.

 

[b_justb]

Giving up all rights to personally interpret Scripture is part of “sola ecclesia.” So is assigning infallibility to men. Sola Scriptura retains the authority of God’s Word.

My prior sounded much more biting than I intended. Please don’t take me wrong. I’m not trying to pin you down or stick my finger in your chest. OK? OK.

Just to clarify, we as Catholics assign infallibility to the Holy Spirit. That is Who is infallible. It is the Spirit that teaches the faithful and He does so through the teaching office of the Church. Sometimes that gets lost in conversations / discussions. The Pope, given certain circumstances, is part of that teaching office, as is the Magisterium, as are Church Councils.

The Spirit has defined the canon of Scripture and how He did that was through men. The process of the canonization of Scripture was a human one working in cooperation with the Spirit. I think we can agree to that, can’t we?

The teaching office of the Church has interpreted only about a dozen verses from the whole canon, that’s it. When we Catholics look at Scripture we do so through the lens of the teachings of the Church. If someone wants to look at it a different way, then go ahead. But there is no logical argument that comes from, “My view is better than your view,” if there is no view that is absolute. So, among the various communities that relies on the Bible as their final authority there can be no unity if there is even a hint of discord in thought. How can there be? There can be consensus, there can be agreement, there can be civility and charity in the disagreements, but not unity.

 

[moondweller]

So if sola scriptura is not of the devil…

Excaliber, you originally presented the logic that because Satan used Scripture to tempt Jesus, Satan is, de facto, the inventor of “sola Scriptura.” So if Jesus then refuted Satan by quoting Scripture (which he did), then that would mean Jesus employed a Satanic tool. The Righteous One employed unrighteousness? Such a conclusion would be blasphemous, or, in fact, your logic is faulty.

 

[excaliber]

Depends on what you call “unity.” There’s a difference between “unity” and “conformity.” The former can be achieved spiritually without total outward conformity. However, the latter can be totally achieved without true spirituality. For instance, Jesus said to the church at Sardis, “I know your deeds, that you have a name (outward appearance) that you are alive, but you are dead.” When Jesus prayed that we be “one” in Him, He was not praying for outward, religious conformity.Well, if one read the Bible he would soon see that it is not men who are building the Church, but Christ Himself. So I agree, the Bible is not a blueprint on how to build a church, but it tells us who and what it is and on what foundation Christ Himself is building it.

I disagree, however, that one cannot know 100 percent of the faith through the 66 Books of the Scriptures. What do we know about Christ and salvation that is not revealed in the Bible?

When I say unity I mean unity.
LOL!!! can’t you see, if you can’t completley understand what is writen in this forum, why do you think you can understand everything writen in a book that had to be translated numerous times?..And DON’T answer that the Holy Spirit guides you…bcause ofcourse God is not going to contradict himself by causing 30,000 different groups to all think they are the one true faith.

You canot seriously think you have 100 percent of the faith in your 66 books!!!

When and how often do you celebrate the Lords evening meal?
Wine or grape juice?
Should everyone wear suits…can women wear pants?
Should women be teachers?
I could go on and on about gays and other things.
But the reason protstants can’t even agree on small dtails is because these details ARE NOT IN THE BIBLE. 100 Percent of the faith is not writen in a book.