Solo vs Sola Scriptura:

[paul_c]

I affirm this statement 100%. However, Paul, there are three types of teaching: Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy, and Heresy.

Orthodoxy is that which must be affirmed to be Christian.

Heterodoxy is that which one can take many points of view on and not be in conflict with Orthodoxy (like Thomism vs. Molonism)

Heresy is that which contradicts Orthodoxy.

Okay, that being said. The point I was making is that where the real disagreements lie is what is Orthodoxy and what is Heterodoxy as these will define Heresy.

The Catholic Church defines much more as Orthodoxy that other Christian churches do. So, Catholics see division amongst Protestants where Protestants do not see division. Many of the denominations disagree on points that those denominations consider heterodoxical.

Since Protestants and Catholics disagree on the definitions of these words it significantly hampers inter-denominational dialogues between Protestants and Catholics because we get hung up in all this minutia that really comes down to us defining these words differently.

So, my point is sure we can discuss our differences. Sure we can work towards understanding one another. Sure, if you believe that my beliefs are heretical you can tell me so and tell me why and I can do the same with you. But, we should really stop trying to convert one another.

If God seeks the conversion it will happen. Leave if up to God and up to God’s Grace and stop trying to convert one another, stop the in fighting but keep up the discussions, and allow God’s Grace to work unhampered by we Christian brethren. That’s really all I was saying. Which I think is clear if you take my post in the context of the post I was responding to.

Well, I agree that all we can do is to state the truth as we see it and if you agree that what I say is the truth, then you are converted, at least as far as that particular point.

Now as to your point about heterodoxy vs orthodoxy, can you give me an example of what you are talking about.

 

[Drawmack]

Well, I agree that all we can do is to state the truth as we see it and if you agree that what I say is the truth, then you are converted, at least as far as that particular point.

Now as to your point about heterodoxy vs orthodoxy, can you give me an example of what you are talking about.

One exampled of heterodoxy is Thomism vs. Molonism which are different teachings but both in accord with Orthodoxy as defined by the Catholic Church.

Another, and more from the Protestant lineage, example of heterodoxy and orthodoxy is eschatology. The way the Protestants see it is this. If you affirm that Jesus came, died, was resurrected, and will come again to judge humanity then you affirm the orthodoxy on eschatology. Therefore believing in the rapture as pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, or post-tribulation and also being a-milenial (the Catholic teaching) are all simply matters of heterodoxy. They all affirm the essentials of the orthodoxy, from a Protestant perspective, on the topic. So they are simply different teachings and not heretical teachings.

Is that something like you were looking for?

 

[Drawmack]

We of the Catholic faith also agree that the Bible is the Inerrant/Infallible Word of God even though it is an inanimate object.

Actually, Lampo was saying that an inanimate object cannot be infallible to say that the Bible cannot be infallible.

The rub lies when the Catholic Church places Tradition as part of the Word of God, no greater, no less, the Word of God.

Yeah, I understand that.

Prior to the Reformation most Christians accepted that teaching.

I would say that this is an argument from silence. Just because most Christians did not (in writing) argue with the Catholic Church prior to the reformation one cannot conclude from that fact that they agreed with or accepted the teaching. It is no coincidence that the reformation happened nearly as soon as the printing press was invented which greatly improved communication beyond one’s own locality. I certainly am not offering an argument that most Christians disagreed, rather I am simply saying that you cannot take the silence to mean acceptance. So, on this point you are arguing from silence and silence is not valid as proof of support.

I will not attempt to take this line of discussion any further concerning how the Bible came into being in my dialog, because I get the feeling you are quite learned in biblical history and I don’t want to get into a circular argument with you. That is not the purpose of my post.

Thank you

The OP of this thread was on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It is a doctrine than I find very difficult to understand in light of what the Bible teaches as I have been taught.

I think the important part of the above sentence is “as I have been taught”. This has been stated in the thread by others, but allow me to directly ask you at this juncture. Assuming you were taught by the Catholic Church, and that you accept the doctrine of infallibility, then the Catholic Church is not accountable for what they have taught you. Why is the Catholic Church the single exception to the rule of accountability for its teachings?

It just does not make sense to me. My wife and I have some very passionate discussions on this topic, she is Baptist " If it is not in the Bible it’s not true" her words not mine.

What your wife is espousing when she says that is Solo Scriptura and not Sola Scriptura. I’ve never seen the plans for an internal combustion engine in the Bible, but I’m pretty sure those things work really well. I’ve also never seen anything in Scripture which says that internal combustion engines don’t work. See what Sola Scriptura actually states is that Scripture is the highest authority and all other beliefs are subject to Scripture, thus no belief can contradict Scripture, but it doesn’t need to be contained in Scripture either.

It does grieve me though that in our discussions about faith just how much she was taught as a young women that is totally false and to be quite frank actually hostile towards the Catholic Church.

Yes there are many Protestants, in my experience especially Baptists, who are hostile towards Catholicism. I work against this because as far as I’m concerned we’re all Christians.

I dare say that I don’t think she will ever convert to Catholicism, though she did ask me about praying the Rosary the other night, so maybe there is hope.

Look around, there is a book by a Presbyterian minister on the benefits of praying the Rosary – your wife might find it profitable.

I do think as Paul C. stated in an earlier post it is important not to mislead people and as Christians we must not exclude portions or make false statements about our own or other’s faith doctrines.

I never said we should.

Now I’ll go do a little research on Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy and our differences. No need to study Heresy I’ve got the Church to tell me what that is.

I’ve made a case on these boards that Sola Fide is actually heterodoxy and not heresy when seen properly. I won’t go into it here – but I had some pretty staunch Catholics agreeing with me.

Thanks for setting me straight on posting “one liners”

I did say I was guilty of it sometimes too. Besides I’ve had a lot of conversations with Lampo and they have a tendency to take one sentence out of context within a long post and assume that invalidates your entire post so I avoid that by only giving them a thesis statement and leaving it at that.

 

[RedBert]

My wife and I have some very passionate discussions on this topic, she is Baptist " If it is not in the Bible it’s not true" her words not mine.

:

THE BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH:
CHAPTER 1
OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
Paragraph 1. The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience,1 although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation…

Ok we have seen this before , still within the the OP definition of Sola Sciptura

Paragraph 6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.9 Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word,10 and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

and that looks like sola not solo

from wiki
Historically, Baptists have emphasized the sole authority of the Scriptures, or sola scriptura, and therefore believe that the Bible is the only authoritative source of God’s truth. Chapter one of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith states:
The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience…
…
In more recent times, many Baptists worldwide have changed their position to **Prima scriptura, whereby Scripture is given high authority, but with other allowable ways of guidance. **
The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, for example, states:
The Fellowship believes in the divine inspiration of the Bible and its authority in the lives of Christians, who are free to follow and interpret it under the Lordship of Christ. Christians are responsible under God for their interpretation of Scripture.[1]
The American Baptist Churches USA has a similar stance:
Holy Scripture always has been for us the most authoritative guide to knowing and serving the triune God… As the divinely-inspired word of God, the Bible for us reveals our faith and its mandated practice.[2]

Prima Scriptura is even MORE removed from the SOLO scriptura perspective .

Prima scriptura is a doctrine that says canonized scripture is “first” or “above all” sources of divine revelation.
Implicitly, this view acknowledges that, besides canonical scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe, and how he should live, such as the created order, traditions, charismatic gifts, mystical insight, angelic visitations, conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the times or something else. Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will, that do not originate from canonized scripture, are in a second place, perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the scriptures -wiki

 

[Lampo]

And, that is the same thing we’re saying about the Bible.

And you are wrong to say that because an inanimate object cannot be infallible. Only people can be infallible.

 

[Lampo]

And, that is the same thing we’re saying about the Bible.

You believe the Bible cannot teach error? The Bible doesn’t teach. People teach.

I’m having a brain cramp (as usual.) What is the scripture verse where someone says he needs someone to teach him what the scriptures mean? Possibly 1 Timothy or 2 Timothy?

 

[Lampo]

Why does Saint Paul write that the Church, and not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of the truth? This is a powerful text that refutes the Protestant theory of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) which erroneously holds that the Bible is the sole source of Christian truth (a theory which cannot be found anywhere in the Scriptures). Instead, Saint Paul says the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

This means that all the truth Jesus left us concerning faith, morality and our salvation flows from a living Church. As the Catholic Church teaches, God has given us His truth in the form of the living word (written Scriptures and oral tradition) and the living teaching authority of the Church, endowed with the gift of binding and loosing. In fact, it is because the Church is the foundation of truth that we believe in the Bible. This is because the Catholic Church put the Bible together by determining which books were inspired and which books were not. The Church completed its selection of the “canon of Scripture” at the end of the fourth century. If the Catholic Church were not the pinnacle and bulwark of the truth, our belief in the Bible would be without foundation.

The Church’s compilation of the Bible illuminates the error of sola Scriptura. Protestants generally believe that God has revealed everything that is necessary for our salvation through the Bible alone. Consequently, they also believe that no knowledge found outside of the Bible regarding the Christian faith is necessary for our salvation. However, the knowledge of which Scriptures belong in the Bible and which Scriptures do not is necessary for our salvation because if we didn’t know this we could be led into error. Further, this knowledge could only come from God because human beings cannot necessarily discern divine inspiration.

The problem, therefore, with sola Scriptura, is that the knowledge of which Scriptures are inspired and which ones are not is not contained in the Bible. The Bible does not have an “inspired table of contents.” Instead, this knowledge of the canon of Scripture is a revelation from God that is necessary for our salvation, and yet came to us from outside the Bible . This revelation was given to the Holy Catholic Church, and this historical and theological fact destroys the doctrine of sola Scriptura (interestingly, while Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church on most matters, they accept her authority in determining the New Testament canon of Scripture; we pejoratively call such picking and choosing which doctrines to believe and which doctrines to reject “Cafeteria Catholicism”).

If I were a Protestant trying to prove sola Scriptura, and there was a verse that said “the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of the truth,” I would be proclaiming that verse from the roof tops. At the same time, if I were a Protestant, I would have to ignore 1 Timothy 3:15 to continue my protest of the Catholic faith.

-taken from www.scripturecatholic.com

 

[RedBert]

Why does Saint Paul write that the Church, and not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of the truth? This is a powerful text that refutes the Protestant theory of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) which erroneously holds that the Bible is the sole source of Christian truth (a theory which cannot be found anywhere in the Scriptures). Instead, Saint Paul says the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Pauls writes to the churches in Galatia:
“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel”
Must be different churches

JESUS himself corrects 5 of the 7 churches in Revelation.
Must be different churches

Within ONE generation, the churches were going off base:

2000 years later , the church claims infalliblity.

 

[paul_c]

Pauls writes to the churches in Galatia:
“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel”
Must be different churches

JESUS himself corrects 5 of the 7 churches in Revelation.
Must be different churches

Within ONE generation, the churches were going off base:

2000 years later , the church claims infalliblity.

RedBert,
there were always people who were willing to create their own versions of Christianity, leading to all sorts of heresies. Now, you know that in Galatians, Paul was complaining that the Jewish Christians were not honoring the resutls of the Council of Jerusalem. That was clearly rectified because Christians are not now subject to Jewish dietary laws.
As for the churches in Revelations, they were mostly told to fight harder against heresies, weren’t they. Don’t you think they took that to heart?

The infallibility of the church is a function of it teaching what it was taught by Jesus. As long as it does that, it will be infallible and Jesus said he would be with the church to make sure that happened. In fact, isn’t that what he did in Revelations?

 

[Drawmack]

You believe the Bible cannot teach error? The Bible doesn’t teach. People teach.

I’ve learned an aweful lot of things from reading a book. So, should I say I taught myself those things or is it appropriate to say I learned them from the book? If I say I learned them from the book then the book taught them too me.

I’m having a brain cramp (as usual.) What is the scripture verse where someone says he needs someone to teach him what the scriptures mean? Possibly 1 Timothy or 2 Timothy?

It is in Acts. The Eunuch says he needs someone to interpret Scripture for him to understand it, but then Paul is whisked away as soon as the eunuch is baptized, this is because once the eunuch is baptized he then possess the ability to both read and interpret Scripture.

 

[Mark01]

THE BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH:
CHAPTER 1
OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
Paragraph 1. The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience,1 although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation…

Ok we have seen this before , still within the the OP definition of Sola Sciptura

Paragraph 6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.9 Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word,10 and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

and that looks like sola not solo

from wiki
Historically, Baptists have emphasized the sole authority of the Scriptures, or sola scriptura, and therefore believe that the Bible is the only authoritative source of God’s truth. Chapter one of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith states:
The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience…
…
In more recent times, many Baptists worldwide have changed their position to Prima scriptura, whereby Scripture is given high authority, but with other allowable ways of guidance.
The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, for example, states:
The Fellowship believes in the divine inspiration of the Bible and its authority in the lives of Christians, who are free to follow and interpret it under the Lordship of Christ. Christians are responsible under God for their interpretation of Scripture.[1]
The American Baptist Churches USA has a similar stance:
Holy Scripture always has been for us the most authoritative guide to knowing and serving the triune God… As the divinely-inspired word of God, the Bible for us reveals our faith and its mandated practice.[2]

Prima Scriptura is even MORE removed from the SOLO scriptura perspective .

Prima scriptura is a doctrine that says canonized scripture is “first” or “above all” sources of divine revelation.
Implicitly, this view acknowledges that, besides canonical scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe, and how he should live, such as the created order, traditions, charismatic gifts, mystical insight, angelic visitations, conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the times or something else. Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will, that do not originate from canonized scripture, are in a second place, perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the scriptures -wiki

Redbert, thanks for the information it will help in discussions with my wife. I see that many Baptist are defining in detail what their teachings are, which the Catholic Church has been doing for centuries as a responce to a ever changing world.

 

[Mark01]

I think the important part of the above sentence is “as I have been taught”. This has been stated in the thread by others, but allow me to directly ask you at this juncture. Assuming you were taught by the Catholic Church, and that you accept the doctrine of infallibility, then the Catholic Church is not accountable for what they have taught you. Why is the Catholic Church the single exception to the rule of accountability for its teachings?

Yes, Drawmack, I do believe that the Catholic Church is Infallible, and that She is also accountable for Her teachings to Her Supreme Ruler, Jesus Christ, so therefore I do not believe it to be an exception to the rule.

I think often times people mistake, Infallibility and Impeccability, only Jesus Christ is both.
The Church in Her teachings on faith and morals is Infallible, Her leaders past, preset and future are the men and women who have been called to lead and guide Her, and being born of original sin are no different than anyone else. They are not impeccable.

 

[Lampo]

I’ve learned an aweful lot of things from reading a book. So, should I say I taught myself those things or is it appropriate to say I learned them from the book? If I say I learned them from the book then the book taught them too me.

You could say it either way. People would know what you mean. When I first started playing my instrument of choice, I bought an instruction book and learned the basics from that. I believe it is accurate for me to say that I taught myself how to play that instrument. As you know, the Bible is more than an instruction book. Some things a person can glean for himself without an interpreter. An example would be that one of Jesus’ disciples is named Thomas. Other parts of the Bible require an infallible interpreter. An example of that would be the necessity of infant baptism.

It is in Acts. The Eunuch says he needs someone to interpret Scripture for him to understand it, but then Paul is whisked away as soon as the eunuch is baptized, this is because once the eunuch is baptized he then possess the ability to both read and interpret Scripture.

Thanks. Your interpretation of it isn’t accurate, but thanks for showing me that passage. You do admit that your interpretation could be wrong don’t you?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I do believe that the Catholic Church is Infallible, and that She is also accountable for Her teachings to Her Supreme Ruler, Jesus Christ, so therefore I do not believe it to be an exception to the rule.

1. I don’t think anyone questions the sincerity of your faith (or that of ANY other human being in ANY matter or regard). I don’t think anyone is even discussing any act of faith. And I personally will afford you EXACTLY the same respect for this act of faith in your denomination as you afford to our Mormon friends for the exact same act of faith in their denomination. Fair enough? I’m certain you think it is.
2. Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in norming. Those that embrace this Rule obviously embrace accountability; they embrace that the teaching under reveiw and the teacher teaching it are ACCOUNTABLE. They believe that truth matters - especially doctrine regarding our souls. And thus they embrace that the teachers of such are ACCOUNTABLE for doctrine. This is where we fundamentally disagree. You reveal the Catholic position: The Catholic Church exempts itself from accountability for the doctrines that it alone teaches. It passionately embraces accountability and norming for every OTHER teacher on the planet and in all of history (whether that teacher be an individual, a group, a church body, an institution, a denomination - it matters not )ALL teachers are FULLY accountable for their teachings - right here and right now, not JUST before God. In this we agree, but The Catholic Church makes one stunning and remarkable and complete exception: Itself. Exclusively. In the singular, exclusive case of itself, whatever it teaches is rather to simply be accepted “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” I regard this as poor epistemology and a poor indicator that the teacher so demanding in the singular case of himself is correct. Again, the issue before us is NOT sincerity of faith, it’s truth. It’s not whether you should be respected for your act of faith just as you respect others for the same act of faith, it’s whether a teacher is correct in what is presented as doctrine.
3. IMHO (and obviously we fundamentally disagree here), the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, confident that the light reveals God’s truth and uncaring about his own ego, power and control over others. The false teacher must hide in the dark, exempt self from accountability, circumvent norming, and rather insist that everyone just accept whatever self alone says with docility, as God speaking. My study of the LDS and of the cults - as well as just life - confirms this to me. Thus, a teacher insisting that self be exempt from accountability and instead, all perform the act of faith of which you speak is not only a poor indicator that he is correct, but for me, sends up a pretty big red flag that he may well not be correct. At best, it is the desire of that one to be exempt from what he demands of all others.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Lampo]

The problem is that Scripture does not suggest sola Scriptura. No where in the Bible will you find any writer say that the Scriptures are the sole, exclusive and infallible authority for God’s word. To the contrary, the sacred writers repeatedly emphasize oral Tradition, the Church, and the authority of the Church’s ecclesial hierarchy (that is why you see repeated references to bishops, priests, deacons and the “laying on of hands.”) Only the Catholic Church exhibits these characteristics of the New Testament Church with its hierarchical structure, and only the bishops of the Catholic Church, united with the pope, can trace their lineage back to the apostles.

If you study the early Church fathers’ writings for the first seven centuries, you will not find one single father who taught sola Scriptura. To the contrary, the fathers taught that Christ established one church, with a visible and unifying head who is the pope, the successor of Peter on which Christ built the Church. In fact, Ignatius of Antioch called the church “Catholic” in A.D. 107, in his letter to the Smyreans, as he was being led to his martyrdom. You see constant references to “Catholic church” in the writings of the early fathers.

The Bible is a Catholic book, written by the early Church, protected and preserved by the Church down through the years, who determined its canonicity and apostolicity. It is a mis-nomer to say “we are Bible-based.” Instead, we must say that the Bible is “Church-based.” Sola Scriptura is like tearing off someone’s arm, and then beating them with it. The Bible is an indispensable part of God’s revealed Word, but He gave the fullness of His Revelation to His Church, both orally and in writing (2 Thess. 2:15).

This is why St. Paul says it is the Church, not the Scriptures, that is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth." (1 Tim. 3:15). This is why the Ethiopian eunuch, when he was reading Isaiah, said he needed someone to help him interpret the Scriptures. Christ gave us the Church, his Bride, to lead us into all truth. God gave us a Church; He didn’t just give us a book and tell us to figure it out on our own. God is bound by His love and justice to ensure that we would be receiving the truth, and this is the role of His Church.

The Bible was never intended to be the entire deposit of faith that Christ gave to His apostles. Most of the letters of the New Testament are addressing various problems in the early churches, and shoring up the oral apostolic tradition that the faithful already received. Christ never even commanded His apostles to write anything down, and only five of them did. Where the others less faithful? Of course not. Neither Christ nor any apostle ever said “hey guys, follow oral apostolic tradition until the bible is canonized in 350 years; and then just obey the Bible alone.” Paul says quite the contrary in 2 Thess. 2:15. God intended us to be guided into all truth by the Church, from which the Scriptures came.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

I am having a very hard time following you. I might have to drop back here.
Then, let’s take it slow and easy, one step at a time.

.

Do you think that truth matters? Especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you think that it matters of a doctrine is right or wrong?
Do you think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for the correctness of that teaching?
Do you think The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?

Not all of them agree with all of them in all matters that any of them regards as necesarry for there to be agreement. Do you agree?

.
This is a perfect example of me not following what you are trying to say.

How many of them does The Catholic Church agree with? That’s right, just one: itself. How many does The Assembly of God Church agree with? Well, fully - just one: itself. Some of the above (The Catholic Church for example) have a unity of just one: self with self; they agree only with the one it sees in the mirror - and that only formally, officially and in those matters that self alone currently regards as good for there to be agreement. Others (such as Brigham Young) have another on the list where there is agreement. the significance of this is an issue that concludes to perplex me.

You seem to have this very odd idea that if self agrees with self, then self is correct. Where do you get this idea? Friend, every teacher agrees with himself, so by your rubric you are defending, they are all correct. Yes, we all know, The Catholic Church agrees with itself (formally, officially and currently) in all matters that itself alone currently regards as good to agree about. SO WHAT? Just as the LDS church agrees with the LDS church when the LDS church teaches LDS doctrines. Okay. So what? How in the world does THAT indicate that it is correct?

As you know, The Catholic Church only agrees with itself. Exclusively. It has a unity of one: itself with itself. The WORSE that can be said of any other teacher is that such also only agrees with self (although, in most cases, others aren’t as “bad” in this regard as is The Catholic Church).

.

.
one difference that I see with you( self) and the Catholic Church (self):you are truly an individual whereas the Catholic Church is not.

So what? A teacher is a teacher. The LDS is not an individual person, but the LDS agrees with the LDS (formally and officially, anyway) in all matters that it itself currently holds as necessary to agree upon, exactly as does The Catholic Church. I’m entirely at a loss to know why self agreeing with self indicates that self is infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error and all must accept whatever that self says with docility.

Accountable for what?

For what is taught. The Reformed Church in America teaches that God predestines some to eternal damnation. Do you think that teacher should be accountable for what is teach as doctrine?

.

Your question doesn’t make sense to me. I just don’t understand your question.

I realize that accountability is a very foreign concept for Catholics…

A teacher says, “If one watches Jungle2Jungle starring Tim Allen, he shall be saved.” Does it matter if that teaching is correct or not? IF so, then you are embracing that the statement is accountable, the teaching is accountable, the teacher is accountable for this teaching. Follow?

Now, if you don’t think truth matters - then who cares if it’s right or not? But if you do (especially since this involves our eternal salvation - and especially if this was declared as doctrine), then it matters to you if it is true. And it would be relevant - even essential - to determine if it is correct.

Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you think the teachers of doctrine are accountable for such?
Do you think The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
IF you answer “yes” to those questions (and I realize, as a Catholic, you may not), then you embrace that The Catholic Church is accountable for its doctrines. And thus the norming of them is essential. The first question then becomes, WHAT best serves as the rule/canon for that? But you may not participate in that discussion since The Catholic Church does not permit accountability in doctrines in the sole, singular, exclusive case of it and it itself alone.

.

 

[Lampo]

…the teacher is accountable for this teaching. Follow?

No. I follow you up to this statement. What does this statement mean? If it is proven that the teacher taught something untrue, what happens to the teacher? How is the teacher held accountable? How is it proven that the teacher taught something untrue? Because you don’t agree with the teaching? Still makes no sense to me.

We believe the Church has the fullness of truth and is the pillar and bullwark of truth. (1 Tim 3:15) Not differing, fallible, individual interpretations of scripture.

 

[Mark01]

1. IMHO (and obviously we fundamentally disagree here), the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, confident that the light reveals God’s truth and uncaring about his own ego, power and control over others.
   .

Josiah I do not fundamentally disagree with you about the meaning of a true teacher. I think what we disagree on is what it means to accept teaching with “docility” because it sounds like it prohibits free thinking. To my knowledge the Church does not prohibit my free thinking, but it does prohibit me from picking and choosing my own menu so to speak on faith based and moral issues. I choose to participate in union with those teachings.

I quote from the CCC
The freedom of faith

160
To be human, "man’s response to God by faith must be free, and . . . therefore nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will. The act of faith is of its very nature a free act."39 "God calls men to serve him in spirit and in truth. Consequently they are bound to him in conscience, but not coerced. . . . This fact received its fullest manifestation in Christ Jesus."40 Indeed, Christ invited people to faith and conversion, but never coerced them. "For he bore witness to the truth but refused to use force to impose it on those who spoke against it. His kingdom . . . grows by the love with which Christ, lifted up on the cross, draws men to himself."41

I know this opens the door on a conversation about the use of force by the Catholic Church in past history, but that is another topic of discussion.

I am not coerced into believing but I do accept in a “docile” manner my beliefs based on what I have been taught. If I disagree with a teaching of the Church I find out what the Church actually teaches and why. There is a wealth of information available on the teachings of the Catholic faith available to anyone who wants to study them. If one chooses to embrace them the door is open, if they don’t, the door is still open.

 

[paul_c]

It is in Acts. The Eunuch says he needs someone to interpret Scripture for him to understand it, but then Paul is whisked away as soon as the eunuch is baptized, this is because once the eunuch is baptized he then possess the ability to both read and interpret Scripture.

Drawmack, for the record, it was Philip not Paul who preached to the Eunuch but nowhere does it say that Philip left because being baptized gave the Eunuch the ability to interpret scripture. You and I have both been baptized and yet we have totally different interpretations of this scriptural passage. One of us is wrong . Since you are the one claiming that baptism gives you the ability to accurately interpret scripture, I think its clear that it has to be you that is wrong.

 

[Drawmack]

Yes, Drawmack, I do believe that the Catholic Church is Infallible, and that She is also accountable for Her teachings to Her Supreme Ruler, Jesus Christ, so therefore I do not believe it to be an exception to the rule.

I think often times people mistake, Infallibility and Impeccability, only Jesus Christ is both.
The Church in Her teachings on faith and morals is Infallible, Her leaders past, preset and future are the men and women who have been called to lead and guide Her, and being born of original sin are no different than anyone else. They are not impeccable.

I’m not confusing the two. I’m saying that if you accept infallibility then you accept what the Catholic Church says about how to interpret Scripture and you accept what the Catholic Church says about how Scripture supports their interpretations. This leaves no room for accountability. The Catholic Church simply says, Scripture X means Y and therefore we do Z and it is not in conflict with Scripture. There is no system of accountability in place for parts Y and Z. Why is the Catholic Church the only exception to accountability in this manner?