Solo vs Sola Scriptura:

[paul_c]

Yes, as I’ve been saying the Catholic Church allows less room for heterodoxy than does Scripture.

That’s because you can make scripture say virtually anything you want. Remember in Luke, where Satan tested Jesus using scripture? Scripture needs an authorized interpreter to be validly understood. That role, my friend, was entrusted to the Catholic Church. Men like Luther and Calvin seprated themselves from the Church because they thought they had a better interpretation of scriptre… But what they liked deviated from the truth. For instance, Luther liked scripture to say that sin was unimportant and that Faith alone was required so he selectively read scripture and even tried to eliminate the gospel of James, what he called the epistle of straw, because it taught that Faith without works is dead.

 

[Lampo]

THAT is why it rejects the Rule of Scripture…

When did this Rule of Scripture come into being? Who was the first espouse it?

 

[paul_c]

I agree. Tell that to the Catholic here trying to make the point that because it alone agrees with it alone - it’s correct. Or that because it alone agrees with the tradition of it alone that it alone is correct. But we seem to be in agreement here.

Yes. The Catholic Church alone claims that The Catholic Church alone is infallible - and thus exempt from accountability. THAT is why it rejects the Rule of Scripture (and ANY OTHER rule) in the norming of its doctrines; it’s not because it has an alternative rule (better or worse), it doesn’t. It’s because it exempts it and it itself exclusively from ANY norming by ANY norm in the single case of it itself alone. “I’m right so I’m right - just accept it with docility.”

No. Sorry, but it can “back up” none of the claims. There’s no evidence that ANY denomination existed in 30 AD, much less the singular, exclusive, specific and particular one that today is The Catholic Church. The only record we have of Jesus’ words and actions are found in the New Testament, and there we find The Catholic Church not so much as even MENTIONED - for anything, about anything, concerning anything. There’s no record of Him founding ANY denomination - much less that specific one. I think we all know that.

You have two entirely FALSE premises. First, that if a teacher is correct, students are infallible and unaccountable. I have asked - repeatedly - for some substantiation for this remarkable and very odd claim (makes me wonder why they give tests in school?). You are confusing teaching with learning, the teacher with the student. The other false premise is even more weird: that if God leads, ergo it is IMPOSSIBLE to not infallibly follow. Very odd because not only is this against EVERYTHING we know from life, entirely illogical but obviously contrary to what they Bible teaches (I strongly suggest you read Genesis Chapter 3 - that, by itself, blows both of these premises entirely out of the water - even if life experience doesn’t). Read jsut that one chapter (all you need to read) and then explain to me your position that students are infallible/unaccountable, and that if God leads - it is impossible to not follow (and we are unaccountable for it if we don’t).

But, I admit, you are presenting the Catholic position well. SOMEHOW, The Catholic Church needs to exempt ITSELF from all accountability, but embrace every OTHER teacher as fully and completely accountable - right here, right now. It’s necessary so that it can condemn all OTHERS but it cannot be regarded as wrong. We see this same “problem” in the LDS and in all the cults. As far as I can tell, every one of them addresses it the same way: “God founded ME - exclusively and solely. God promised that I alone am infallible/unaccountable. Embrace accountability for all others, but reject it in the singular, sole, exclusive case of me alone - cuz I’m right so I’m right.”

And yet The Catholic Church is at least as “bad” as any other in this regard: It agrees only with itself. You can say NO WORSE about any other teacher… Your idea of unity: self alone agreeing with self alone, a unity of one: self with self is an odd one.

You seem to be confusing a teacher agreeing with himself alone with that teacher being correct. I remind you that you declared that to be “absurd” (to use your exact word).

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Josiah, why would the Catholic church have to agree with other churches, particularly the ones that broke off from the Catholic church? It was the Protestant churches that created disunity, not the Catholic Church. By definition, the Catholic Church should not agree with the churches protesting against it.

And of course the Catholic Church agrees with itself. That is the sign that it has remained consistent with the teachings of Christ. if it stopped agreeing with that, then we would have an apostasy.

You deny the fact that the Catholic Church has continuity of doctrine and leadership back to the apostles, but despite your diatribes on multiple forums and multiple threads, you have never supported your view. You have only stated that we can’t prove it. When we have indeed proved it through the writings of the Early Church Fathers, you simply ignore it. Yes, you have chosen to be a Lutheran, knowing that that church was founded in the 1500s and knowing that you have no personal respect for Martin Luther, its founder.

Your positions, frankly, are nothing more than unsupported rhetoric. You continually trot out the measuring tape metaphor, despite knowing that while any two people can get the same reading using a measuring tape, they will not have the same interpretations of the bible without a valid interpreter. This is intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Lampo]

I agree. Tell that to the Catholic here trying to make the point that because it alone agrees with it alone - it’s correct. Or that because it alone agrees with the tradition of it alone that it alone is correct. But we seem to be in agreement here.

In a sense we are in agreement. Catholics don’t believe the Church is correct *just *because the Church agrees with itself. Yes, we believe the Church is correct because of its teachings on who Jesus is and what the Church is and we succumb to the authority of the Church. I believe this is the real issue with you - Authority.

No. Sorry, but it can “back up” none of the claims. There’s no evidence that ANY denomination existed in 30 AD, much less the singular, exclusive, specific and particular one that today is The Catholic Church. The only record we have of Jesus’ words and actions are found in the New Testament, and there we find The Catholic Church not so much as even MENTIONED - for anything, about anything, concerning anything. There’s no record of Him founding ANY denomination - much less that specific one. I think we all know that.

Ah ha! *This *is the real issue. Probably should create another thread in regards to it.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

You continue to talk about self agreeing with self does not authenticate a belief. I agree with that, but isn’t that what you do when practicing SS. You used the analogy of a builder and the need for a ruler, indicating that Scripture is that ruler. Great analogy! But don’t those who are using the ruler need to know how to use the ruler? Remember, the Scriptures tell us it is possible to misuse the ruler. We have to conclude in the midst of all the conflicting beliefs that are out there, somebody is misusing the ruler. But, the real question is how do you determine who is an expert measurement taker and who is not.

1. Are you agreeing that truth matters - especially doctrine concerning our very souls? Do you agree that the teachers of such are accountable for such (be VERY careful before you answer this - remembering that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine; read your Catechism # 87 before you answer)? Then, you cannot be a faithful Catholic (or as my Deacon noted, a Catholic at all). The Catholic Church teaches, Christians docilicly accept it as true. The Catholic Church don’t need no norming cuz it cannot be wrong. Maggie, with all due respect (and I totally mean that), you need to make up your mind, which is it? Now if you perform an act of faith and just do what The Catholic Church requires (lay aside accountability in the singular case of it itself alone, and rather just accept whatever it alone says with docility) then we have nothing more to say in this thread, and, again, I will afford you EXACTLY the same respect for your act of faith in this regard as you afford to Mormons and those in the cults who perform the EXACT SAME act of faith demanded by their denomination/teacher. Fair enough? I’m sure you think so.
2. Yes, you raise the very important point of hermeneutics and arbitration!!! I could not agree more! It’s just not what this thread is about. This thread is about ACCOUNTABILITY - and the norming (and thus norma normans) that involves. Yes, Scripture needs to be interpreted! Start a thread on that and we can discuss hermeneutical principles (by the way, there is no significant difference between Protestant and Catholic hermeneutical principles). And if you want to talk about arbitration, we can. It’s a very, very difficult subject for the church today - shattered by pride, institutionalism, individualism (all things I’d point to The Catholic Church for creating!) But self declaring that self is the SOLE arbiter for the correctness of self, moot since self declares self alone as INCAPABLE of being wrong (the arbitive process the Catholic Church insists on) is one I find remarkable for Catholics to defend - but they must, and they do. But, ah, another topic for another day and thread.

Continues in the next post…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

**continuing the post above…
**

it comes down to a choice. I choose to believe that Jesus established a Church of authority, His authority. I choose to believe that to listen to that Church is to listen to Him.

I respectfully disagree. While I realize all in religion involves Soren Kierkegaard’s proverbial “leap of faith,” I agree with him that such is the LAST step, not the first. My Mormon friends, and those I “met” during my quest to understand the cults in America - ALL speak as you do. Yes, one can “choose” to embrace ANYTHING (as some do). But that makes it entirely moot, doesn’t it, that Jesus so often warned of false teachers, antichrists, those that lead many astray. It makes it kinda moot that God holds us accountable - with heaven and hell. It makes it odd that Jesus would praise the Ephesian Christians for holding their teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for declaring them false. I “get” your point, my sister. But then you have no basis at all for claiming your Evangelical friend as “wrong” (BTW, I wholly agree with you) or Islam as wrong or atheism as wrong - or you as right. You’ve just made a “choice.” Such relativism scares me. BTW, it does the Pope, too - who has been very vocal to renounce what I think you are suggesting.

Again, I will respect your choice to the EXACT same extent that you respect exactly the same choice, the exact same act of faith, that the Mormons make vis-a-vis the exact same demand from their denomination.

I understand that you looked at the “confusion” in matters of truth - and bailed. It’s why a lot of my friends don’t vote, and why a lot of them are raging relativists. Common among those my age. Yes, the quest for truth can be “messy” and hard. I don’t deny that. I just think that truth matters - and thus is worth it. My study of the LDS and of all the cults taught me that self exempting self from accountability has NO relevance to that self being correct, thus the epistemological demand of The Catholic Church alone for itself alone became problematic - and one of the reasons why I left. IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident that the light reveals God’s Truth and unconcerned about personal power, pride, control and lording it over others as the Gentiles do. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability, shield his teachings from norming, and rather insist that all just accept whatever self alone says “with docility.” Read on…

I graduated from college when I was 19, with a degree in math and physics (with honors, I say with some glee, lol). I still work in that field, as a grant writer at a university that does considerable scientific research. See, my respect for a teacher soared if he/she was open to questioning, when he/she wanted to be correct more than just accepted as right, when he/she substantiated things. I would check out of a class if the prof said, “I’m infallible. I’m unaccountable. I’m absolutely and undeniably correct because I’m right and I say I’m right. I don’t need to substantiate anything cuz I’m right. If you disagree with me then you’re wrong cuz I’m right. Just accept WHATEVER I say with docility.” You and I might have different life experiences. And perhaps my experience in the LDS and all the cults with the epistemology you and the Catholics here are defending “colored” my response to it.

WITHOUT A DOUBT, some Christians take all this WAY too far. There is a balance here. IMHO, the “evangelical” who appoints self as the sole interpreter, sole arbiter, right cuz the Holy Spirit leads himself alone and he alone infallibly “follows” that lead is, ironically, making the same same inbalance as he is (rightfully) accusing The Catholic Church of doing. IMHO, the quest for truth is not as simple as “it is whatever I choose to think it is.” I agree with the Holy Father. THAT is perhaps the most dangerous heresy of all time, the biggest threat to Christianity ever to arise.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

In a sense we are in agreement. Yes, we believe the Church is correct because of its teachings on who Jesus is and what the Church is and we succumb to the authority of the Church.

Which is it?

Do you hold your teacher as accountable, norm/test it, appoint yourself as the arbiter, and conclude your teacher is correct? (IF so, then you are what my Deacon called, “A Protestant hiding in the Church” and, as he insisted, you are not only not Catholic at all but are the biggest threat to The Catholic Church).

Or do you accept whatever it alone says cuz it alone says you are to?

Read your Catechism # 87 before you answer.

.

 

[paul_c]

.

**continuing the post above…
**

I respectfully disagree. While I realize all in religion involves Soren Kierkegaard’s proverbial “leap of faith,” I agree with him that such is the LAST step, not the first. My Mormon friends, and those I “met” during my quest to understand the cults in America - ALL speak as you do. Yes, one can “choose” to embrace ANYTHING (as some do). But that makes it entirely moot, doesn’t it, that Jesus so often warned of false teachers, antichrists, those that lead many astray. It makes it kinda moot that God holds us accountable - with heaven and hell. It makes it odd that Jesus would praise the Ephesian Christians for holding their teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for declaring them false. I “get” your point, my sister. But then you have no basis at all for claiming your Evangelical friend as “wrong” (BTW, I wholly agree with you) or Islam as wrong or atheism as wrong - or you as right. You’ve just made a “choice.” Such relativism scares me. BTW, it does the Pope, too - who has been very vocal to renounce what I think you are suggesting.

Again, I will respect your choice to the EXACT same extent that you respect exactly the same choice, the exact same act of faith, that the Mormons make vis-a-vis the exact same demand from their denomination.

I understand that you looked at the “confusion” in matters of truth - and bailed. It’s why a lot of my friends don’t vote, and why a lot of them are raging relativists. Common among those my age. Yes, the quest for truth can be “messy” and hard. I don’t deny that. I just think that truth matters - and thus is worth it. My study of the LDS and of all the cults taught me that self exempting self from accountability has NO relevance to that self being correct, thus the epistemological demand of The Catholic Church alone for itself alone became problematic - and one of the reasons why I left. IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident that the light reveals God’s Truth and unconcerned about personal power, pride, control and lording it over others as the Gentiles do. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability, shield his teachings from norming, and rather insist that all just accept whatever self alone says “with docility.” Read on…

I graduated from college when I was 19, with a degree in math and physics (with honors, I say with some glee, lol). I still work in that field, as a grant writer at a university that does considerable scientific research. See, my respect for a teacher soared if he/she was open to questioning, when he/she wanted to be correct more than just accepted as right, when he/she substantiated things. I would check out of a class if the prof said, “I’m infallible. I’m unaccountable. I’m absolutely and undeniably correct because I’m right and I say I’m right. I don’t need to substantiate anything cuz I’m right. If you disagree with me then you’re wrong cuz I’m right. Just accept WHATEVER I say with docility.” You and I might have different life experiences. And perhaps my experience in the LDS and all the cults with the epistemology you and the Catholics here are defending “colored” my response to it.

WITHOUT A DOUBT, some Christians take all this WAY too far. There is a balance here. IMHO, the “evangelical” who appoints self as the sole interpreter, sole arbiter, right cuz the Holy Spirit leads himself alone and he alone infallibly “follows” that lead is, ironically, making the same same inbalance as he is (rightfully) accusing The Catholic Church of doing. IMHO, the quest for truth is not as simple as “it is whatever I choose to think it is.” I agree with the Holy Father. THAT is perhaps the most dangerous heresy of all time, the biggest threat to Christianity ever to arise.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Josiah,
You are put off by the Catholic claims that it is the one true church but all churches make that claim, its not just the cults. All churches teach that they are the way to heaven. The trick is to find which one is truly the one

If you are indeed a researcher, try doing a little research on the foundation of every church you think might have a claim at being the valid church of God. It’s really not that hard. They all recognize their founders. For instance, your current church was founded by Martin Luther. I know that you have some distain for him form other threads, but really, you ARE following his Gospel if you are a Lutheran. I suspect, however, that you are a Lutheran in name only, just as you were probably a Catholic in name only. Every thing you have written on these threads suggests that you do not trust any religion to tell you what to think about God and that you prefer to take you religion directly from the bible. You may or may not grow out of that position, which is both arrogant and ignorant at the same time.

If you do the research I suggest, You will quickly come to the realization that the Catholic Church is the Apostolic church and that all other Christian and semi-Christian churches are offshoots where their founders thought they knew a better way than that taught by the Apostles. Men like John Calvin, Martin Luther, and yes, Joseph Smith. You can then test their individual credibilites as to whether they really knew what they claim they knew.

 

[Lampo]

Which is it?

Do you hold your teacher as accountable, norm/test it, appoint yourself as the arbiter, and conclude your teacher is correct? (IF so, then you are what my Deacon called, “A Protestant hiding in the Church” and, as he insisted, you are not only not Catholic at all but are the biggest threat to The Catholic Church).

Or do you accept whatever it alone says cuz it alone says you are to?

Read your Catechism # 87 before you answer.

I don’t accept whatever it alone says *only *“cuz” it alone says I am to. I accept it because I accept the Authority of the Catholic Church.

The Magisterium of the Church

85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” 47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” 48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, 49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

I agree with the above 100%.

 

[Church_Militant]

Which is it?

Do you hold your teacher as accountable, norm/test it, appoint yourself as the arbiter, and conclude your teacher is correct? (IF so, then you are what my Deacon called, “A Protestant hiding in the Church” and, as he insisted, you are not only not Catholic at all but are the biggest threat to The Catholic Church).

Or do you accept whatever it alone says cuz it alone says you are to?

There are far more reasons to accept Catholic teaching than just the Bible…the fact that the ECF wrote in support of authentic Catholic teaching adds both credibility and authority to that teaching.

For instance, let’s look at what one of the earliest ECFs wrote that sheds some light on your own Lutheran separation from the Catholic faith.

Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Read your Catechism # 87 before you answer.

Helps a lot if you offer something in context.

The Magisterium of the Church
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48
87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah,
You are put off by the Catholic claims that it is the one true church but all churches make that claim, its not just the cults. All churches teach that they are the way to heaven. The trick is to find which one is truly the one

Wrong.

1. The Catholic Church (like the LDS as well as all the cults) insist that Jesus founded itself BECAUSE it is the basis of the claim of each alone for each alone that each alone is infallible/unaccountable. MY position is that thus then needs to be substantiated (which, obviously, none can do) and I reject the premise that God promised to teach/lead a denomination (one exclusively or a denomination at all) or that even if such were the case, that such mandates infallibility/unaccountability.
2. I know of only two Christian denominations that claim that Jesus specifically and exclusively founded IT - The Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It’s the primary common denominator in all the cults, of course, but those are the only two CHRISTIAN denominations that so claim (assuming you regard the LDS as Christian - let’s not get into that). The various Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox churches do make a similar claim here, but not for the reasons that the RCC, LDS and the cults do. My denomination “claims” that it was founded by a group of men, lead by Rev. Dr. C.F.W. Walther, and that it was established in 1847 in St. Louis, MO. It was incorporated under the laws of the State of Missouri. No one claims it was founded by Jesus.

If you do the research I suggest, You will quickly come to the realization that the Catholic Church is the Apostolic church

I have. I read everything my Catholic teachers presented. None of it revealed that Jesus founded ANY denomination, by ANY name, at ANY time. Catholic keep saying how He founded The Catholic Church - specifically, exclusively - and yet have yet to not that He so much as even mentioned it. Or any other in His time or for decades after that (and even that is, sadly, by poor grammar in translating Latin and Greek into modern English).
But it’s moot. It’s all based on your premise that STUDENTS and FOLLOWERS are infallible and regarded as unaccountable - issues you’ve never even tried to defend as correct.

.

 

[Lampo]

None of it revealed that Jesus founded ANY denomination, by ANY name, at ANY time.

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” - Matt. 16:18
That’s why Jesus’ Church isn’t considered a denomination. In the year 107AD, it was given the name “Catholic.”

 

[AmericanJosiah]

There are far more reasons to accept Catholic teaching than just the Bible…the fact that the ECF wrote in support of authentic Catholic teaching adds both credibility and authority to that teaching.

So, which is it?

Do you accept the teachings of The Catholic Church as correct BECAUSE you’ve investigated, tested, normed - and come to the conclusion that such is correct? If so, then my Deacon would call you a “Protestant hiding in the Church” and point to you to what is “wrong” in the Church today and the greatest threat EVER to her.

Or do you do as The Catholic Church requires: that you accept with docility whatever it alone teaches you (officially, formally, in matters of faith and morals)?

Which is it?

Yes, every denomination has it’s “leaders” (Lutherans and Anglicans also refer to them as “Fathers”). And yes, if The Catholic Church chooses the authors of its liking, and chooses the snippets from them of its liking, and appoints itself alone as the interpreter of those snippets, and declares it’s interpretation of its snippets as normative - then self is pretty likely to find that self agrees with self. Works that way in all denominations. I just find that remarkably unremarkable. Just as you do if such don’t happen to be the interpretations of your denomination of the snippets chosen by your denomination of the men embraced by your denomination. Same/same.

The question before us is this: Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine regarding our very souls? Do you believe that teachers of such are accountable for such? IF you answer “yes” to these, then the doctrines of The Catholic Church are accountable - no less and no more than those of any other teacher (including some you rebuke). And obviously, we are then embracing norming - and the issue of WHAT best serves as the norma normans for such? I reject the alternatives offered here: That if self alone agrees with self alone then self is correct (Luther would be correct in that rubric). And “if self alone declares that self alone is correct then self alone is” (The LDS is correct by that rubric). Sure - I don’t deny that a teacher (ANY teacher) can simply declare himself exclusively to be incapable of being wrong. And I don’t deny that a teacher (ANY teacher) can simply require that he alone be exempt from accountability and demand all to just accept whatever that self says “with docility.” I just don’t accept that those are sound rubrics for determining if the teacher is correct. And I reject the fundamental Catholic apologetic that students and followers are infallible/unaccountable.

IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident that the light reveals God’s Truth, unconcerned about the power and pride of self and the ability of self to lord it over others as the Gentiles do. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability, exempt self from norming, and laying all that aside, insist that all rather just accept whatever self alone says “with docility” “as God speaking” (compare to CCC #87 and to “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie, etc.).

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” - Matt. 16:18

Read what Jesus said. You just substantiated my point.

.

 

[Church_Militant]

Wrong.

1. The Catholic Church (like the LDS as well as all the cults) insist that Jesus founded itself BECAUSE it is the basis of the claim of each alone for each alone that each alone is infallible/unaccountable. MY position is that thus then needs to be substantiated (which, obviously, none can do) and I reject the premise that God promised to teach/lead a denomination (one exclusively or a denomination at all) or that even if such were the case, that such mandates infallibility/unaccountability.

Really? Well Martin Luther and his errors certainly were not there on te day of Pentecost, and neither were they there for the first 1500 years of Christian history.

Nor were there any women ordained as priests in all that time, since neither the Word of God nor the Tradition of teh faith has ever offered even hint of such an error.

Accountability? Where was it when your errant denomination came forth with Sol Scriptura? Where was it when they brought forth ordination of women? Where were they in 1930 when they led the world into scandalous error by declaring artificial birth control a matter of personal conscience instead of the sin that it really is?

I could go on, but I don’t need to. The facts speak for themselves.

BTW, the LDS doesn’t count, their golden plates have about as much credibility as your own errors. http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/emo-epicfail.png

1. I know of only two Christian denominations that claim that Jesus specifically and exclusively founded IT - The Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It’s the primary common denominator in all the cults, of course, but those are the only two CHRISTIAN denominations that so claim (assuming you regard the LDS as Christian - let’s not get into that). The various Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox churches do make a similar claim here, but not for the reasons that the RCC, LDS and the cults do. My denomination “claims” that it was founded by a group of men, lead by Rev. Dr. C.F.W. Walther, and that it was established in 1847 in St. Louis, MO. It was incorporated under the laws of the State of Missouri. No one claims it was founded by Jesus.

Is this your best shot? Polemics parroted from a-Cs. That’s pretty sad.

You cannot even support the topic of this thread, (Sola Scriptura) with specific scriptures, and you let go with this?

Even if the argument was valid, which it is not… then why are you not a member of the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox churches?

I have. I read everything my Catholic teachers presented. None of it revealed that Jesus founded ANY denomination, by ANY name, at ANY time. Catholic keep saying how He founded The Catholic Church - specifically, exclusively - and yet have yet to not that He so much as even mentioned it. Or any other in His time or for decades after that (and even that is, sadly, by poor grammar in translating Latin and Greek into modern English).
But it’s moot. It’s all based on your premise that STUDENTS and FOLLOWERS are infallible and regarded as unaccountable - issues you’ve never even tried to defend as correct.

Probably because they are not relevant to this topic. Suggest that you open a new thread if you wish to argue something other than SS.

That’s what the Forum Rules require.

 

[Church_Militant]

The question before us is this: Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine regarding our very souls? Do you believe that teachers of such are accountable for such? IF you answer “yes” to these, then the doctrines of The Catholic Church are accountable - no less and no more than those of any other teacher (including some you rebuke). And obviously, we are then embracing norming - and the issue of WHAT best serves as the norma normans for such? I reject the alternatives offered here: That if self alone agrees with self alone then self is correct (Luther would be correct in that rubric). And “if self alone declares that self alone is correct then self alone is” (The LDS is correct by that rubric). Sure - I don’t deny that a teacher (ANY teacher) can simply declare himself exclusively to be incapable of being wrong. And I don’t deny that a teacher (ANY teacher) can simply require that he alone be exempt from accountability and demand all to just accept whatever that self says “with docility.” I just don’t accept that those are sound rubrics for determining if the teacher is correct. And I reject the fundamental Catholic apologetic that students and followers are infallible/unaccountable.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

Yet you are part of a denom that has erred and not been held accountable by anyone but the Catholic Church for some 500 years. You figure this amounts to truth? I don’t think so.

Again…I suggest that you return to the topic of Sola Scriptura and if you want to pursue this line of argument, which is not relevant, then open a new thread.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Josiah,
You are put off by the Catholic claims that it is the one true church but all churches make that claim, its not just the cults. All churches teach that they are the way to heaven. The trick is to find which one is truly the one

Wrong? Tell me one church that doesn’t claim it is the best path to heaven? Such a church would cease to exist because it would have nothing to offer.

1. The Catholic Church (like the LDS as well as all the cults) insist that Jesus founded itself BECAUSE it is the basis of the claim of each alone for each alone that each alone is infallible/unaccountable. MY position is that thus then needs to be substantiated (which, obviously, none can do) and I reject the premise that God promised to teach/lead a denomination (one exclusively or a denomination at all) or that even if such were the case, that such mandates infallibility/unaccountability.

This has been substantiated. Even you admit that it is the only Christian church that has a claim to being founded by Jesus. (with the LDS, but I’lll show you the fallacy of that in a minute)

1. I know of only two Christian denominations that claim that Jesus specifically and exclusively founded IT - The Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It’s the primary common denominator in all the cults, of course, but those are the only two CHRISTIAN denominations that so claim (assuming you regard the LDS as Christian - let’s not get into that). The various Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox churches do make a similar claim here, but not for the reasons that the RCC, LDS and the cults do. My denomination “claims” that it was founded by a group of men, lead by Rev. Dr. C.F.W. Walther, and that it was established in 1847 in St. Louis, MO. It was incorporated under the laws of the State of Missouri. No one claims it was founded by Jesus.

The Catholic Church IS the only Christian church founded by Jesus. The Mormons were founded by Joseph Smith in 1830. This is in all their literature. They claim that he was called by God to restore the Christian church after the great Apostasy, which of course they can’t place in time or place. So why does Dr. CFW Walther have an crediblity for you. Why was he imparted knowledge no one else had? If your church wasn’t founded by Christ, why do you have any faith in it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c If you do the research I suggest, You will quickly come to the realization that the Catholic Church is the Apostolic church

I have. I read everything my Catholic teachers presented. None of it revealed that Jesus founded ANY denomination, by ANY name, at ANY time. Catholic keep saying how He founded The Catholic Church - specifically, exclusively - and yet have yet to not that He so much as even mentioned it. Or any other in His time or for decades after that (and even that is, sadly, by poor grammar in translating Latin and Greek into modern English).
But it’s moot. It’s all based on your premise that STUDENTS and FOLLOWERS are infallible and regarded as unaccountable - issues you’ve never even tried to defend as correct. This is pitiful. You are basing your eternal salvation on a decision and this is the best you can do for researching? You are telling me that someone with a college degree at age 19 (with honors) isn’t capable of getting beyond the fact that the Church wasn’t labelled as “Catholic” until after the new testament books were written? Why are you wasting all your time arguing about norming? Why don’t you actually learn about the faith? It would do you good to actually read what we send you instead of simply slapping on the same arguements.

Have your read Eusebius’ “The history of the Church” ? If not, start your research right here:
newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm. It was written around 300AD and traces the history of the church from Jesus to that time. It will clear up your issue about the Catholic Church not being the Apostolic Church for sure.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

**
So, which is it?

Do you accept the teachings of The Catholic Church as correct BECAUSE you’ve investigated, tested, normed - and come to the conclusion that such is correct? If so, then my Deacon would call you a “Protestant hiding in the Church” and point to you to what is “wrong” in the Church today and the greatest threat EVER to her.

Or do you do as The Catholic Church requires: that you accept with docility whatever it alone teaches you (officially, formally, in matters of faith and morals)?

Which is it? **

.
Really? Well Martin Luther and his errors certainly were not there on te day of Pentecost, and neither were they there for the first 1500 years of Christian history.

**Yes, every denomination has it’s “leaders” (Lutherans and Anglicans also refer to them as “Fathers”). And yes, if The Catholic Church chooses the authors of its liking, and chooses the snippets from them of its liking, and appoints itself alone as the interpreter of those snippets, and declares it’s interpretation of its snippets as normative - then self is pretty likely to find that self agrees with self. Works that way in all denominations. I just find that remarkably unremarkable. Just as you do if such don’t happen to be the interpretations of your denomination of the snippets chosen by your denomination of the men embraced by your denomination. Same/same.

The question before us is this: Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine regarding our very souls? Do you believe that teachers of such are accountable for such? IF you answer “yes” to these, then the doctrines of The Catholic Church are accountable - no less and no more than those of any other teacher (including some you rebuke). And obviously, we are then embracing norming - and the issue of WHAT best serves as the norma normans for such? I reject the alternatives offered here: That if self alone agrees with self alone then self is correct (Luther would be correct in that rubric). And “if self alone declares that self alone is correct then self alone is” (The LDS is correct by that rubric). Sure - I don’t deny that a teacher (ANY teacher) can simply declare himself exclusively to be incapable of being wrong. And I don’t deny that a teacher (ANY teacher) can simply require that he alone be exempt from accountability and demand all to just accept whatever that self says “with docility.” I just don’t accept that those are sound rubrics for determining if the teacher is correct. And I reject the fundamental Catholic apologetic that students and followers are infallible/unaccountable.

IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident that the light reveals God’s Truth, unconcerned about the power and pride of self and the ability of self to lord it over others as the Gentiles do. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability, exempt self from norming, and laying all that aside, insist that all rather just accept whatever self alone says “with docility” “as God speaking” (compare to CCC #87 and to “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie, etc.).**

.

the LDS doesn’t count, their golden plates have about as much credibility as your own errors.

Is this your best shot? Polemics parroted from a-Cs. That’s pretty sad.

.

You cannot even support the topic of this thread, (Sola Scriptura) with specific scriptures

Actually, the praxis is well exampled in Scripture. What is not is your alternative: that if self declares that self is unaccountable, then that self is infallible. Or that those taught or lead by Christ are infallible/unaccountable. Read Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, James 3:1, Ephesians 4:14 for starters.

Suggest that you open a new thread if you wish to argue something other than SS.

That’s what I’ve been TRYING to do, Catholics however have been intent on switching the discussion to The Catholic Church exclusively being exempt from accountability and norming and thus ANY norma normans in such. Intent on claiming (but never substantiating) that the best way to determine the correctness of a teacher is for that teacher exclusively to exempt self exclusively from accountability and to just accept with docility that whatever that teacher says is correct with docility; that students and followers of God are infallible and unaccountable, etc.

Let’s get to the point:

Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for such?
If so, then you think that The Catholic Church is accountable for its doctrines - no less than any and all other teachers and you have rejected what The Catholic Church requires of you (CCC 87 for example), and the question then becomes WHAT best serves as the norma normans for that norming? I have given the reasons why I think Scripture best serves. No Catholic has offered any alternative because The Catholic Church does not (it rejects all others, as well; any you suggest will be rejected by The Catholic Church since it rejects accountability by ANY rule/canon; it requires that all just accept whatever it teaches “with docility”).

.

 

[maggie41]

.

**continuing the post above…
**

I respectfully disagree. While I realize all in religion involves Soren Kierkegaard’s proverbial “leap of faith,” I agree with him that such is the LAST step, not the first. My Mormon friends, and those I “met” during my quest to understand the cults in America - ALL speak as you do. Yes, one can “choose” to embrace ANYTHING (as some do). But that makes it entirely moot, doesn’t it, that Jesus so often warned of false teachers, antichrists, those that lead many astray. It makes it kinda moot that God holds us accountable - with heaven and hell. It makes it odd that Jesus would praise the Ephesian Christians for holding their teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for declaring them false. I “get” your point, my sister. But then you have no basis at all for claiming your Evangelical friend as “wrong” (BTW, I wholly agree with you) or Islam as wrong or atheism as wrong - or you as right. You’ve just made a “choice.” Such relativism scares me. BTW, it does the Pope, too - who has been very vocal to renounce what I think you are suggesting.

Again, I will respect your choice to the EXACT same extent that you respect exactly the same choice, the exact same act of faith, that the Mormons make vis-a-vis the exact same demand from their denomination.

I understand that you looked at the “confusion” in matters of truth - and bailed. It’s why a lot of my friends don’t vote, and why a lot of them are raging relativists. Common among those my age. Yes, the quest for truth can be “messy” and hard. I don’t deny that. I just think that truth matters - and thus is worth it. My study of the LDS and of all the cults taught me that self exempting self from accountability has NO relevance to that self being correct, thus the epistemological demand of The Catholic Church alone for itself alone became problematic - and one of the reasons why I left. IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident that the light reveals God’s Truth and unconcerned about personal power, pride, control and lording it over others as the Gentiles do. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability, shield his teachings from norming, and rather insist that all just accept whatever self alone says “with docility.” Read on…

I graduated from college when I was 19, with a degree in math and physics (with honors, I say with some glee, lol). I still work in that field, as a grant writer at a university that does considerable scientific research. See, my respect for a teacher soared if he/she was open to questioning, when he/she wanted to be correct more than just accepted as right, when he/she substantiated things. I would check out of a class if the prof said, “I’m infallible. I’m unaccountable. I’m absolutely and undeniably correct because I’m right and I say I’m right. I don’t need to substantiate anything cuz I’m right. If you disagree with me then you’re wrong cuz I’m right. Just accept WHATEVER I say with docility.” You and I might have different life experiences. And perhaps my experience in the LDS and all the cults with the epistemology you and the Catholics here are defending “colored” my response to it.

WITHOUT A DOUBT, some Christians take all this WAY too far. There is a balance here. IMHO, the “evangelical” who appoints self as the sole interpreter, sole arbiter, right cuz the Holy Spirit leads himself alone and he alone infallibly “follows” that lead is, ironically, making the same same inbalance as he is (rightfully) accusing The Catholic Church of doing. IMHO, the quest for truth is not as simple as “it is whatever I choose to think it is.” I agree with the Holy Father. THAT is perhaps the most dangerous heresy of all time, the biggest threat to Christianity ever to arise.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

I definitely agree that relativism is a dangerous thing. I do not believe that truth is relative. There is only one truth and that is God’s truth. It is the reason I became Catholic.

I made the choice though of what I believe the truth to be. I, of course, do not believe that I am wrong, otherwise, I would not be Catholic. The Church offered to me the explanation I sought for the current state of relativism within Christianity. The Church said to me that there is a way to know with certainty the truth, that there is an infallible teacher of the truth. History spoke to me as well, when I looked into some of the early writings I saw a very Catholic faith. When I began to read Scripture with a more open mind, actually paying attention to what was being said, rather than looking for my already determined beliefs in the pages, I saw that some of those beliefs appeared to be in contradiction with what I was reading.

There is really no way around division or relativism without an authoritative teacher of the faith. The LDS would never have been a choice for me because they are very late on the scene and they claim new revelation through Joseph Smith that contradicts the revelation within the NT.

Can you tell me what your answer to relativism in Christianity is?

In Christ’s Love,
Maggie

 

[maggie41]

1. Are you agreeing that truth matters - especially doctrine concerning our very souls? Do you agree that the teachers of such are accountable for such (be VERY careful before you answer this - remembering that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine; read your Catechism # 87 before you answer)? Then, you cannot be a faithful Catholic (or as my Deacon noted, a Catholic at all). The Catholic Church teaches, Christians docilicly accept it as true. The Catholic Church don’t need no norming cuz it cannot be wrong. Maggie, with all due respect (and I totally mean that), you need to make up your mind, which is it? Now if you perform an act of faith and just do what The Catholic Church requires (lay aside accountability in the singular case of it itself alone, and rather just accept whatever it alone says with docility) then we have nothing more to say in this thread, and, again, I will afford you EXACTLY the same respect for your act of faith in this regard as you afford to Mormons and those in the cults who perform the EXACT SAME act of faith demanded by their denomination/teacher. Fair enough? I’m sure you think so.

I can accept with docility that the teachings are true because I trust Jesus’ words. I trust the Church today, just like those who heard the apostles trusted them, with docility. As Jesus said, “those who hear you, hear Me…” For that statement to be true, the apostles had to be protected from teaching error. We couldn’t very well hear Jesus if there was a possibility of error.

How does this remove accountability?

1. Yes, you raise the very important point of hermeneutics and arbitration!!! I could not agree more! It’s just not what this thread is about. This thread is about ACCOUNTABILITY - and the norming (and thus norma normans) that involves. Yes, Scripture needs to be interpreted! Start a thread on that and we can discuss hermeneutical principles (by the way, there is no significant difference between Protestant and Catholic hermeneutical principles). And if you want to talk about arbitration, we can. It’s a very, very difficult subject for the church today - shattered by pride, institutionalism, individualism (all things I’d point to The Catholic Church for creating!) But self declaring that self is the SOLE arbiter for the correctness of self, moot since self declares self alone as INCAPABLE of being wrong (the arbitive process the Catholic Church insists on) is one I find remarkable for Catholics to defend - but they must, and they do. But, ah, another topic for another day and thread.

This thread is about the definition of SS. Hermeneutics is central to the topic of this thread. It goes to the very heart of the matter.

In Christ’s Love,
Maggie