Duane,
I have no doubt, and do not dispute, that Catholic Christians believe what you say here. As for solving disputes, the scripture itself, in Acts, puts in place the vehicle for solving disputes: council. And note, that a truly ecumenical council is not simply a ribber stamp for any one bishop, including the Bishop of Rome.
I hope you mean rubber and not ribber or robber.
But, from the earliest of councils, if the bishop of Rome did not approve, the decrees were null and void.
Of in the confessions, for Lutherans, or in the catechism, for Catholics. I know you don’t mean any disrespect. My thinking is that, at least from a Lutheran perspective, your comment here is more directed toward a solo scriptura approach.
Jon, there is no difference. If one were to agree with let’s say what the Church says scripture means, then fine, everything is hunkydory. But what if someone disagrees? All one has to say is: “you have not proved to me, or us that, this is what is meant by scripture.” And that is what is happening exponentially all over the world. Jon, when someone says you must prove to me, they have set themselves up as the authority for what scripture says. I know you have commented on John 6 over in non-cath forum, and I know the Real Presence of the Eucharist is important to you and I (what a great YES song that is), and to Lutherans and Catholics. There has been quite a debate over whether Jesus was being literal or figurative. Both you, and the other person, both
sola scriptura adherents, on this issue are at odds with one another. No matter what is shown through the text, or tradition, he says it is all figurative. And he is not alone. For him, we cannot prove from the bible that Jesus is being literal. And he cannot possibly prove to you (because he is wrong
), from the bible that you are wrong. But I think you and I agree that this is an important issue.
One must always go outside of scripture to settle disputes like this. The good news is, Jesus set it up. He left the Church with the authority to do it. If the Church does not have the authority, then surely she did not have the authority to determine the canon either.
ISTM that orthodox Christians agree on most of these, with variances in views regarding some forms of ABC’s. No?
Jon, do you think 100 years ago, anyone would have ever dreamed that homosexual marriage would be legalized in the USA, and that if it was, that there would be mainline denominations willing to perform a marriage rite? Or sex change? Look at all the threads on this, from different Lutherans, Anglicans, and yes Catholics. All of them say, Jesus is love, and would not condemn a loving relationship. All of them interpret scripture the way they want to. And if their church says: “no you’re wrong, scripture doesn’t say that”, they say: “not the way I see it”, and find a church that agrees with their views. Scripture can, and has been twisted to support many things. That is why I say
sola scriptura, can never work. In the end it always must become solo.
A few last questions. Have you ever seen
sola scriptura actually applied to settle a dispute a denomination was having? And how did it work out, did all parties leave content? Or is it just some theory that has never been applied?
And one last comment. I know I read this almost a year ago somewhere, so I am going to paraphrase it ( I will try to find the exact quote). I believe it was St. Athanasius when talking about the Arian heresy and the Council of Nicaea, and he said something like this: "For every scripture passage we quoted, they quoted one in return, and more. We were deadlocked. In the end, it was our appeal to the traditions held by our forefathers, that was the deciding factor.
Thanks for your replies to the earlier questions I posted.
