Sola Scripture (yes, again)

[guanophore]

Part 1a

I must have missed it. Can you show me in Scripture where this is explicitedly spelled out?

I guess I am not sure how you can “miss it”. What do you think it means when Jesus says the Spirit “will lead you into all truth”?

Not all church splits have to do with doctrinal differences that i’m aware. Most that i am are due to church plantings from a larger church that starts a church in a different part of the city or country.
There are some splits due to doctrinal differences as we see in the Anglican church over homosexuality and rightfully so.

Yes, but it speaks to division coming from there being no central authority in doctrine. I think some splits come from placing personalities over principles. It really has nothing to do with doctrine, just people being intolerant of each other.

What is your criteria that you use to determine if an authority is speaking the truth or not?

When Jesus gives His word that He will remain until the end of the age, and will send His Spirit, and His Spirit will guide into all truth.

Do you think all catholics who do read and study the catechism arrive at the very same understanding of it? Are there differences of opinion on what certain sections or teachings mean?

I have not personally met any, but am sure it is possible. I mean, when you see how many different interpretations there are for the scripture it is clearly common. That is why it is so important to have one Authority that is entrusted with right doctrine.

Peter is an interesting example that i think demonstrates that even one who is under the influnce of the Holy Spirit can err. In the passage you refer to that is exactly what happened. This should tell us that even when the Holy Spirit they can err.

This is certainly true. This is why we know that, no matter how devout one individual is, they can err. Did his error mean that he was not a sincere disciple, or that God’s grace was not with him? I don’t think so.

That is why we emphasize that the charism belongs to the Church and not the individual.

 

[guanophore]

What do you do when its more subtle than this? For example is it a false teacher when many catholics are claiming that Mary is spouse of the Holy Spirit when the church has not offically declared that?

I don’t think this is a very “subtle” example. However, since laypeople are not, for the most part, charged with teaching authority, then it cannot be considered “a false teacher”. The Bishops are charged with that authority, so something on that level is another matter.

When false teachers are present and teaching falsely.

From your post, it sounds like you consider anyone with an opinion a “teacher”.

No doubt there are and have been problems in protestantism. Are you also willing to admit that the Roman Catholic church guided by the Holy Spirit is responsible for the inquistions that went on for centuries with the support of the popes?

Of course. The inquisitions were the only way to ensure that a trial happened (without a summary execution).

 

[guanophore]

I am just stunned that Catholics really believe that the Catholic church produced the Bible. Incredible!!!

I came here looking for information that could lead to my conversion from Protestantism to the RCC. Instead I keep finding so many reasons why that would be wrong for me.

Really? Where do you think it came from?

 

[Brother_John]

Really? Where do you think it came from?

Is that a rhetorical question?

:doh2:

 

[Namesake]

Really? Where do you think it came from?

I think it came from the Holy Spirit through the holy catholic apostolic church, which is the body of Christ.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I’m serious, I was looking to convert. My wife is so happy that I found this site because she was afraid I really would convert.

I thank you all here for showing me the truth about Catholicism. I have learned a lot.

Unlike the Protestant denominations The Catholic Church does not change its doctrine nor its teaching (nor does it spin off new sects) just to conform to the “popularism of the day” and to win converts. Catholics will never compromise truth just to fill the pews. It is not a numbers game for God nor the Church. God wants true believers who trust in Him, His Son and His Church. God does not fail. So falling away or turning one’s back on truth is a personal choice. It is not a consequence of a poor sales job and you can’t transfer guilt or responsibility to somone else. Attitude is everything when looking and you get out what you put into it.

James

 

[Namesake]

Unlike the Protestant denominations The Catholic Church does not change its doctrine nor its teaching (nor does it spin off new sects) just to conform to the “popularism of the day” and to win converts. Catholics will never compromise truth just to fill the pews. It is not a numbers game for God nor the Church. God wants true believers who trust in Him, His Son and His Church. God does not fail. So falling away or turning one’s back on truth is a personal choice. It is not a consequence of a poor sales job and you can’t transfer guilt or responsibility to somone else. Attitude is everything when looking and you get out what you put into it.

James

The RCC has changed a whole bunch over the years. And new sects are all around us, even on this forum. I get tired of hearing those sorts of claims. I used to believe that too, but then I came here and started learning the truth.

Don’t you believe the Church changed when transubstantiation was invented? Isn’t the Church changing as the position of Mary changes?

What about all the different rites? What about those folks who believe the Holy See is vacant? What about charismatics? And so forth and so on…

Tha RCC does change and it does have different sects, or whatever you would call them, maybe splinter groups.

 

[Namesake]

Unlike the Protestant denominations The Catholic Church does not change its doctrine nor its teaching (nor does it spin off new sects) just to conform to the “popularism of the day” and to win converts. Catholics will never compromise truth just to fill the pews. It is not a numbers game for God nor the Church. God wants true believers who trust in Him, His Son and His Church. God does not fail. So falling away or turning one’s back on truth is a personal choice. It is not a consequence of a poor sales job and you can’t transfer guilt or responsibility to somone else. Attitude is everything when looking and you get out what you put into it.

James

And another thing. Even on this web site I have read advise from Catholics to other Catholics to change to a different parish if they are not pleased with the one they attend. There must be some differences that are perceptible even between parishes. That’s very similar to Protestant groups deciding to flock together based on preferences. Catholics tend to mock Protestants for doing that while it seems to be acceptable for Catholics to do that.

 

[CentralFLJames]

The RCC has changed a whole bunch over the years. And new sects are all around us, even on this forum. I get tired of hearing those sorts of claims. I used to believe that too, but then I came here and started learning the truth.

Don’t you believe the Church changed when transubstantiation was invented? Isn’t the Church changing as the position of Mary changes?

What about all the different rites? What about those folks who believe the Holy See is vacant? What about charismatics? And so forth and so on…

Tha RCC does change and it does have different sects, or whatever you would call them, maybe splinter groups.

The RCC has matured but it most certainly **has not **changed core teaching. For example we are still required to abstain from meat during Friday’s of Lent but not longer required to abstain from meat every Friday. That is not a material change.
The Catholic Church tolerates no sects who are not in concordance with Rome. If a Bishop threatens to break away he is given fair warning and becomes anathema at the instant he disobeys the warning or a dogmatic teaching such as on abortion etc. It’s automatic. So we have no sects per say. There are some foreign and estranged sects (e.g. eastern etc.) that are given some greater independence from Rome but they still are held under the Catholic wing. The SSPX society severed itself from Rome through disobedience and even though these were very pious Catholics they refused to stay in accord with Rome and its leaders were excommunicated (very sad event and we hope to get them back).

In general the Church has grown and matured but it has never recanted dogma or cannon. The mysteries of the Eucharist have been elaborated on but Eucharist was always celebrated. Reverence for Mary has always been a tradition of The Church since the instant that St. John took her into His care at the foot of the cross. Mary is the matriarch of The Church. It is inconceivable that anyone can all themselves Christian without extending Mary a special place of honor and veneration. The Church is just starting to more formally codify its doctrine on Mary in light of modern revelation, scripture, revelations from its saints and of course The Holy Spirit’s prompting.

Those that believe that the Holy See is vacant are not much different than those who seperated themselves from The Church and followed the Protestants out the door. They are estranged from the Church. The Charismatics and such should be seen as just a lay order within the broader church who are specialized on a certain devotional aspect of the Church. All Charismatics must and do submit to the authority and oversight of a parish priest or Bishop. I have not heard of too many abuses - but on occasions a priest has to step in when the laity get outside of permitted activities and start turning the liturgy into something that looks more like an ecumenical pep-rally than a Catholic assembly.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

And another thing. Even on this web site I have read advise from Catholics to other Catholics to change to a different parish if they are not pleased with the one they attend. There must be some differences that are perceptible even between parishes. That’s very similar to Protestant groups deciding to flock together based on preferences. Catholics tend to mock Protestants for doing that while it seems to be acceptable for Catholics to do that.

Naturally there will be style differences and different levels of talents and abilities within the Church parishes. But the core teaching is always the same. One parish I attended has a foreign born priest (very common in the Catholic Church since we are universal). This priest has a very heavy accent that sometimes is hard to hear past until one develops an ear for it. In this case it makes sense to change parishes if one can’t understand what the priest in saying. But we don’t change expecting to find changes in core doctrines. Some parishes are more pious than others for example. Many of us like the daily masses and special devotional services and benedictions. Not all parishes do these all the time since they don’t have enough deacons or priests or enough participation. In cases where one wants a more pious life then yes - we might go to the next parish over. Or if a parish is associated with a Catholic school and has a lot of children in its congregation it may tailor the homily lessons for a lower level of maturity so it does not over-speak the students. Very committed adults may need a higher order presentation of lesson.

Bottom line is it normally comes down to non-doctrinal issues that relate to: the offerings of the parish for social activities or spiritual development as a function of its size, sometimes just a different time of day for mass that works better, occasionally a priest’s personality or “style”, or atmosphere and comfort of the facility and the “feel” of the congregation (older vs. younger ) etc.

I don’t think I have ever visited a Catholic Church that I did not feel at home in or not recognize its Catholic doctrine.

James

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3331937]I guess I am not sure how you can “miss it”. What do you think it means when Jesus says the Spirit “will lead you into all truth”?

If you are referring to John 16:13 i think in context He is speaking what He will be doing through His Spirit in Acts and the letters. The reason i think this is is because He is speaking to His disciples who were with Him during His earthly ministry and now that He was leaving them He would work through the Spirit in guiding them.

Yes, but it speaks to division coming from there being no central authority in doctrine. I think some splits come from placing personalities over principles. It really has nothing to do with doctrine, just people being intolerant of each other.

I agree this can happen and does.

When Jesus gives His word that He will remain until the end of the age, and will send His Spirit, and His Spirit will guide into all truth.

I have not personally met any, but am sure it is possible. I mean, when you see how many different interpretations there are for the scripture it is clearly common. That is why it is so important to have one Authority that is entrusted with right doctrine.

I think you do have an advantage over protestant churches in that you won’t have as many diverse views expressed offically in the catholic church. The disadvantage though is when the catholic church does err it appears to be a far greater problem because the catholic church is so large and the error affects so many more people.

This is certainly true. This is why we know that, no matter how devout one individual is, they can err. Did his error mean that he was not a sincere disciple, or that God’s grace was not with him? I don’t think so.

That is why we emphasize that the charism belongs to the Church and not the individual.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

I am not trying to make you feel bad, as if I could do that.

I’m serious, I was looking to convert. My wife is so happy that I found this site because she was afraid I really would convert.

I thank you all here for showing me the truth about Catholicism. I have learned a lot.

I’ll stick my neck on the chopping block and say I don’t think you’ve learnt a thing.

To suggest that the authority that gave us the bible is not the same authority that runs the Catholic Church is - well - Protestant thinking.

 

[ChristianRoots]

The RCC has changed a whole bunch over the years. And new sects are all around us, even on this forum. I get tired of hearing those sorts of claims. I used to believe that too, but then I came here and started learning the truth.

Don’t you believe the Church changed when transubstantiation was invented? Isn’t the Church changing as the position of Mary changes?

The Catholic Church has never changed doctrine. What it has done over the years was officially define doctrines to combat challenges to it. Transubstantiation was officially defined in 1215, yet that doesn’t mean it wasn’t an article of faith from the very beginning. Of course, it was. A rudimentary reading of the early Church Fathers bears this out. The reason it was defined in 1215 is because it was being challenged at around that time.

The same goes for the Marian dogmas. The Immaculate Conception was not invented when it was officially defined, on the contrary, it was officially defined because it was being seriously challenged at that time.

Look at the concept of the Trinity. Early Christians believed in the Trinity from the get go. So why do you suppose the Church had to define the doctrine some 300+ years later? Answer: Because it was seriously being challenged by Arius, etc.

Official promulgation of doctrines is not evidence of that doctrine being invented at that time.

 

[justasking4]

ChristianRoots;3334898]

The RCC has changed a whole bunch over the years. And new sects are all around us, even on this forum. I get tired of hearing those sorts of claims. I used to believe that too, but then I came here and started learning the truth.

Don’t you believe the Church changed when transubstantiation was invented? Isn’t the Church changing as the position of Mary changes?

 

[ChristianRoots]

James

ChristianRoots;3334898]
The catholic church is in the process even as we speak in changing her postion on Mary. Within the last month cardinals in the Vatican want the pope to declare that she is the mother of the entire human race and the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. These are major changes.

Yes, but the majority of the Fathers did believe in transubstantiation. Even though these fathers were fallible men, it does gives us precious insight into what the Church believed in during this time period.

And well it should have been. The apostles never taught these marian doctrines.

If that was the case, why wasn’t this doctrine defined very early on? Why the 19th century? As I stated earlier, doctrines are defined in response to serious challenges. They are never “invented.”

Revelation ended once and for all with the death of St. John.

[/QUOTE]

 

[justasking4]

ChristianRoots;3335062]James

If that was the case, why wasn’t this doctrine defined very early on? Why the 19th century? As I stated earlier, doctrines are defined in response to serious challenges. They are never “invented.”

Depends what you mean by “invented”. We know that the apostles never taught what was declared in the 19th century. So what do you call this?

Revelation ended once and for all with the death of St. John.

Agreed.

 

[guanophore]

If you are referring to John 16:13 i think in context He is speaking what He will be doing through His Spirit in Acts and the letters. The reason i think this is is because He is speaking to His disciples who were with Him during His earthly ministry and now that He was leaving them He would work through the Spirit in guiding them.

Ok, let me see if I can get this. You think when Jesus promised to send His Spirit to lead the Apostles into all truth, He was talking about writing the book of Acts, and the NT epistles? Is this why you believe they are inerrant? Does the promise only cover the writing of the Acts and the letters, then they were not lead into truth any more after that?

The reason i think this is is because He is speaking to His disciples who were with Him during His earthly ministry and now that He was leaving them He would work through the Spirit in guiding them.

I must not be understanding you here, because the statement above is what Catholics believe. :bigyikes:

I think you do have an advantage over protestant churches in that you won’t have as many diverse views expressed offically in the catholic church. The disadvantage though is when the catholic church does err it appears to be a far greater problem because the catholic church is so large and the error affects so many more people.

This principle makes sense, but it does not happen, because the Church is incapable of error. This is because the Head of the Church is Christ, and the Soul of the Church is the HS. God does not err.

The catholic church is in the process even as we speak in changing her postion on Mary. Within the last month cardinals in the Vatican want the pope to declare that she is the mother of the entire human race and the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. These are major changes.

You admitted yourself that you don’t know the content of Paul’s daily sermons for two years at Tyrannus. The fact that it is not contained in the NT does not mean it was not taught. You think this way because you have limited yourself to the NT. The Didache,and many other early documents attest to Apostolic Teaching, and contain some things not contained in the NT. Baptism of infants, for example.

[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Excellent responses, guanophore, but of course with justasking4it, they are going to fall on deaf ears.

He’s only here to pick a fight. I have yet to see him admit when he is wrong (and solascripturists are infallible!): he just ignores the replies to his challenges and acts as if NO ONE has an answer.

Isn’t it amazing how solascripturists use so much EXTRANEOUS ideas and semantics and historical references and sources OUTSIDE the Bible to prove “sola scriptura.”???

Sola Scripturists trying to reconcile their infallible view with the Truth::banghead: uch: :hypno: :doh2:

Robert

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3335590]Ok, let me see if I can get this. You think when Jesus promised to send His Spirit to lead the Apostles into all truth, He was talking about writing the book of Acts, and the NT epistles? Is this why you believe they are inerrant?

Yes. We know this to be the case.

Does the promise only cover the writing of the Acts and the letters, then they were not lead into truth any more after that?

We know it includes these writings. If you want to go beyond this and claim other writings are also inspired-inerrant then it will be on to bear that burden.

I must not be understanding you here, because the statement above is what Catholics believe. :bigyikes:

This principle makes sense, but it does not happen, because the Church is incapable of error. This is because the Head of the Church is Christ, and the Soul of the Church is the HS. God does not err.

You can claim this all you want but there are facts that show othewise. It is true God does not err but it is not true that fallible men cannot err.

justasking4;3334961]

These are not changes, ja4. These beliefs have been held by the faithful since Mary first shared what the Angel told her. She asked how she would conceive, and was told that the HS would overshadow her. When this happened, the HS espoused Mary to HImself, and the Son of God was conceived in her womb.

To espouse means to marry or give in marriage: to marry somebody or give somebody in marriage. If you are meaning to say that the HS was given in marriage to Mary then you are in great error.
Who in the second century thought such a thing?

That is why the child to be born was called Holy, the Son of God. Mary has been proclaimed as the New Eve from the second century,

Proclaimed by whom? Does this individual speak for the entire church?

and from the time that Jesus gave HIs mother to the “beloved disciple” at the foot of the cross, the Church understood that “here is your mother” was meant for each and every “beloved disciple”.

There is no way to sustain this statement with any biblical exegesis.

This was not even questioned by the Reformers!

The marian doctrines were not the focus of the reformers as far as i can tell. If this is true then its understandable we would not see much on this by them.

You admitted yourself that you don’t know the content of Paul’s daily sermons for two years at Tyrannus. The fact that it is not contained in the NT does not mean it was not taught.

If you want to claim that you know what was taught then do so. Where is your evidence that you know what he taught there for 2 years?

You think this way because you have limited yourself to the NT.

True. It is the Scriptures alone that are inspired-inerrant. If you do not have a sure foundation for your doctrines-practices in the Scriptures then you basing yourself on something far less sure. Either the traditions or speculations of men.

The Didache,and many other early documents attest to Apostolic Teaching, and contain some things not contained in the NT. Baptism of infants, for example.

The problem is that the Didache is not scripture. Even though it may attest i.e. confirm something they taught that does not mean its inspired-inerrant.
Do you know who wrote the Didache and when?

 

[justasking4]

Excellent responses, guanophore, but of course with justasking4it, they are going to fall on deaf ears.

He’s only here to pick a fight. I have yet to see him admit when he is wrong (and solascripturists are infallible!): he just ignores the replies to his challenges and acts as if NO ONE has an answer.

Isn’t it amazing how solascripturists use so much EXTRANEOUS ideas and semantics and historical references and sources OUTSIDE the Bible to prove “sola scriptura.”???

Sola Scripturists trying to reconcile their infallible view with the Truth::banghead: uch: :hypno: :doh2:

Robert

What a powerful argument you give for your beliefs here.

At least guanophore works on counter arguments for the most part rather than rely rethoric as you seem to do here…