N
- Status
R
RedBert
Guest
nuntym : please don’t quote out of context like you did in the post #220 : if possible can you delete or edit?
Thank you
Thank you
N
nuntym
Guest
Is it?
Well ok, I’ve reported my own post to the moderator, I cannot edit delete or edit that post now, sorry.
J
JoeT777
Guest
L
Lampo
Guest
The Protestant is wrong. Not everyone at the time agreed to what books were and were not inspired. The Books that are inspired were inspired from the time they were penned. There were also many other writings at the same time that people thought were inspired. There was confusion about this. In the Early 4th century, the Catholic Church (the only Christian Church at the time) decided infallibly precisely what books were and were not inspired.
Consider yourself gotten back with.
R
RedBert
Guest
maybe something is wrong in the programming : but I, Redbert NEVER wrote what was quoted in post 222
Thats twice in 1 day quotes I did not write are attributed to me
Thats twice in 1 day quotes I did not write are attributed to me
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
So what? The law is different in California than it was 3 months ago, does that make the Rule of Law moot, and instead, if one claims that one is incapable of being wrong, thus they are - and we must just accept whatever is said or done with docility? The Rule of Law embraces the law that IS at that point, the same is true for all norma normans in all disciplines.Josiah:
(according to you) and you rebuke them for using the title “Scripture” and using thus normatively (“Sola Scriptura”):
Matthew 21:42
Matthew 22:29
Matthew 26:54
Matthew 26:56
Mark 12:10
Mark 12:24
Mark 14:40
Mark 15;28
Luke 4:21
Luke 24:27
Luke 24:32
Luke 24:45
John 2:22
John 5:39
John 7:38
John 10:35
John 13:18
John 17:12
John 19:24
John 19:36
John 19:37
John 20:9
Acts 8:32
Acts 8:35
Acts 17:2
Acts 17:11
Acts 18:24
Acts 18:28
Romans 1:2
Romans 4:3
Roamns 9:17
Romans 10:11
Romans 11:2
Romans 15:4
Romans 16:26
1 Cor. 15:3
1 Cor. 15:4
Gal. 3:8
Gal. 3:22
Gal. 4:30
1 Tim. 5:18
2 Tim. 3:16
James 2:8
James 2:2
James 4:5
1 Peter 2:6
2 Peter 1:20
2 Peter 3:16
We all know that The Catholic Church has a UNIQUE set of Scriptures - no other on the planet does (or ever has) agreed with The Catholic Church on this. Frankly, that’s a problem for you to take up with The Catholic Church - why no other Christian body has ever agreed with it on this point. But it’s moot to the discussion here. Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon. Now, it’s true, the corpus of Scripture the Eastern Orthodox embraces is different than that which The Catholic Church does, but then EVERY OTHER is going to be different than what The Catholic Church embraces because it’s embrace is unique to exclusively itself. But that doesn’t change the praxis, does it? In the Rule of Law, the praxis is the the law is normative. Now, it doesn’t matter that the law in New Jersey is not identical to the law in California - the praxis of The Rule of Law is the same. You have a moot point in another sense, too. Yes - under this praxis, The Catholic Church would be “justified” in using 2 Macc (and it does) - and as a Protestant, I permit that. As a Lutheran, I cannot (because Lutheranism NEITHER embraces or rejects the book). We’re off topic (the praxis doesn’t declare what is or is not Scripture - a praxis doesn’t declare or teach ANYTHING), but to briefly address that (Mods - cut me some slack here!), it’s just moot. Lutherans actually quote the CATHOLIC unique books more than Catholics do; Luther preached from them, taught them, included them in his translation, they are referenced in the Lutheran Confessions (just not declared to be Scriptures there). It makes no difference. In all my years in Catholicism, I heard them read RARELY in the lectionary - but that was it. They are simply moot to anyone. The ONLY point of doctrine ever raised from them has to do with purgatory, but the verse there offers nothing to support the unique Catholic doctrine (as all the Orthodox groups also view - and yet they DO accept that book as Scripture) - so, it’s just moot. Go ahead, The Catholic Church can use its totally unique set of books, the Eastern Orthodox can use their unique set of books, the Oriental Orthodox can use their various unique sets of books - in doing so, they can all practice Sola Scriptura, but it makes no difference as we together norm the doctrines among us. Your point - while off topic and interesting - just doesn’t matter. With the POSSIBLE exception of a single verse in one of those books, NONE use any of it for the confirmation of doctrine. And the only verse that is used (and that only by ONE) is moot - as the other that embraces that as Scripture agrees.
Friend, do you think doctrine concerning our souls matters? Do you think the teachers of such should be held accountable for what they teach? IF so (and as a Catholic, I realize you are not so permitted), then you have embraced norming. And the issue becomes WHAT best serves among us now as the norma normans for this norming?
Thank you.
Pax
.
- Josiah
Josiah, What constituted scripture in 700BC was different than what constituted scripture in 33AD which was different than 107AD.
Again, I think you are confusing a strawmen “Sola Biblica” with the praxis of the Rule of Scripture, moot as your point is to us today (as you keep stressing).
Read what you quoted from me. And note that it didn’t have any impact on Jesus referring specifically to SCRIPURE and using such normatively (“Sola Scriptura”)
Yet another reason to reject the epistemology of The Catholic Church which is self alone appointing self alone as the sole, authoritative, infallible, unaccountable interpreter. I AGREE with you, errors CAN happen and teachers SHOULD be accountable for the doctrine they teach. There goes your defense of Catholic epistemology (CCC 85, 87, etc.).
.
L
Lampo
Guest
AJ,
Would you mind defining some of the terms you constantly use? In particular:
Would you mind defining some of the terms you constantly use? In particular:
- norming
- norms
- normans
- norma
- norma normans
- normatively
- sola biblica
- praxis
- rule of scripture
- accountability
D
DCNBILL
Guest
A. J. It would also help if you would define each one without using any of the other words in the definition so as not to create a circular argument.
N
nuntym
Guest
Again, you cannot accuse the Catholic Church for being unaccountable if you cannot even define the basic terms used in a doctrine you are defending.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
“Accuse?” Who ever said anything about “accuse?”
It is THE CATHOLIC CHURCH that stated the following (not me): “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms.” (Catechism # 87).
The Handbook of The Catholic Church (page 137), the opening to the chapter on Authority, states, “When someone asks the Catholic where he finds the substantiation for the teachings of the Church, the answer is: from the teaching authority. This authority consists of the Pope and the bishops in association with him. The Catholic, thus, is freed from any doctrinal questions and lives in quiet certainty that the doctrine of the Catholic Church is the doctrine of Christ himself, for Christ said, ‘whoever hears you hears me’.”
.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Already done many times, but once more can’t hurt:
Code:
To evaluate for correctness.As I’ve shared over and over, it is Latin for “the norm that norms” and in epistemology, refers to what serves as the rule (“straight edge”), canon (“measuring stick”). I’ve used examples of the Rule of Law in civil societies, of the norma normans in my field (physics), and examples a plenty (such as Bob the Builder and a fense he builds, six feet tall - according to him).
To use something in a function to norm.
A common Catholic and Mormon strawman that actually doesn’t exist; the concept of using the Bible as the rule rather than Scripture (they are, of course, one and the same NOW but Catholics and Mormons like to bring up the entirely moot point of thousands of years ago - when none of us were even alive - to say how Sola BIBLICA could have been used then - when, of course, no one ever claimed it was.
Latin for practice, but it carries the connotation of being formally embraced. It is a current praxis in the Latin Rite RCC to generally ordained only unmarried men; it is a current praxis that the appointed lectionary be read during the Mass. It is currently the praxis that the vanacular language be used in the Mass.
Using Scripture as the rule/canon. Just as the Rule of Law means using the law as the rule. A policeman stops you for going 45 MPH on a section on road. His position is that’s speeding. The rule/canon he points to is the big, square, white sign posted next to you both with big, black numerals and letters that state: MAX SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH" In that case, he’s using the Rule of Law.
No problem, glad to do it no matter how often it takes. We all dealing with epistemology here (“how we know”) and particularly norming (“determining correctness, validity”). Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon in the norming of the doctrines among us. That’s it. That’s all. It’s pretty simple and direct. The disagreement is this: Some insist that while all OTHERS are accountable for what is taught as doctrine (and thus norming applies - including an embrace of a rule/canon/norma normans), those that reject this make one and exclusively, solely ONE exception: self. Since self declares self to be exempt from accountability, thus norming doesn’t apply in the sole case of self alone - and thus no norma normans is needed. Most Protestants do not accept that rubric as the most sound means to determine if that self is correct in what that self alone teaches as doctrine, thus the disagreement.
I hope that helps.
Pax
- Josiah
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
.
Sola Scriptura (aka The Rule of Scripture) is the PRAXIS (practice) of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”)/ or as it is known in epistemology, the norma normans (“norm that norms”) in the norming of doctrines among us.
Norming (and the thus required norma normans) is a part of all disciplines. My degree is in physics. If I desired to submit a position for publication in a respected scientific journal, I would need to state my position and then offer the required substantiation according to the rule/canon used by us - namely, math and experimental observation. The best, most sound norma normans is one OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND all parties involved, one that is knowable by all and alterable by none, with a strong (and hopefully historic and universal) embrace as reliable for this purpose. The more objective, the better.
Let’s say you and I, as neighbors, hired Bob the Builder to build a fense on our property line, expressly to be 6 feet tall. The fense is done, and Bob teaches that the fense is 6 feet tall (that, thus, becomes his position). Got it? Now, if truth doesn’t matter to you - then who cares if it’s 6 feet or not, if Bob is correct or not? But let’s say we DO care about truth and whether the teaching is correct. Then, we are embracing Bob as ACCOUNTABLE for his teaching. That, then, mandates norming. Norming is the consideration of whether a position is valid, correct, true. And the first issue in such is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans? Perhaps you, I and Bob all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape. In that case, it would be the norma normans. We all have one. It’s objective, it’s knowable by all of us, it’s alterable by none of it, and all 3 of us regard it as reliable for this purpose. Follow?
Now, turning to doctrine, some Christians think that truth in such matters, and thus believe that teachers of such are ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach as doctrine. Thus, norming is embraced and the first issue becomes WHAT is most sound as the rule/canon here? They believe that Scripture is best. It is regarded by Christians as inerrant and the inscripturated words of God Himself (whom we all see as the ultimately Authority among us); it is knowable by all (we can all equally read the words on the pages) and it is alterable by none (none can change those words). And since it is God’s very inscripturated words and inerrant, we regard it as reliable. We think it a sound norma normans. Some (namely the RCC, LDS as well generally all cults) reject the Rule of Scripture, but not because they have a better candidate for the function but because each rejects accountability for the doctrines of itself, requiring instead that all just accept whatever doctrine that teacher exclusively “with docility.” We disagree on the issue of accountability of doctrines.
BTW, while it is true that the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans is nowhere specifically taught in Scripture (VERY few praxis is!), we do have it exampled many, many times - some 50 times by Jesus Himself, from the arrival of the very first Scripture some 3,400 years ago when the Ten Commandments were embraced as normative. And we are told - over and over and over - to beware of false teachers (and none is exempted) thus implying accountability for teachers, and we have Jesus praising the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for norming them, and even for arbitrating the issue and declaring them false; Jesus praised them for this indicating that accountability and norming of teachers is praiseworthy rather than condemnable (Rev. 2:2).
I hope that helps.
Pax
Sola Scriptura (aka The Rule of Scripture) is the PRAXIS (practice) of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”)/ or as it is known in epistemology, the norma normans (“norm that norms”) in the norming of doctrines among us.
Norming (and the thus required norma normans) is a part of all disciplines. My degree is in physics. If I desired to submit a position for publication in a respected scientific journal, I would need to state my position and then offer the required substantiation according to the rule/canon used by us - namely, math and experimental observation. The best, most sound norma normans is one OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND all parties involved, one that is knowable by all and alterable by none, with a strong (and hopefully historic and universal) embrace as reliable for this purpose. The more objective, the better.
Let’s say you and I, as neighbors, hired Bob the Builder to build a fense on our property line, expressly to be 6 feet tall. The fense is done, and Bob teaches that the fense is 6 feet tall (that, thus, becomes his position). Got it? Now, if truth doesn’t matter to you - then who cares if it’s 6 feet or not, if Bob is correct or not? But let’s say we DO care about truth and whether the teaching is correct. Then, we are embracing Bob as ACCOUNTABLE for his teaching. That, then, mandates norming. Norming is the consideration of whether a position is valid, correct, true. And the first issue in such is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans? Perhaps you, I and Bob all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape. In that case, it would be the norma normans. We all have one. It’s objective, it’s knowable by all of us, it’s alterable by none of it, and all 3 of us regard it as reliable for this purpose. Follow?
Now, turning to doctrine, some Christians think that truth in such matters, and thus believe that teachers of such are ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach as doctrine. Thus, norming is embraced and the first issue becomes WHAT is most sound as the rule/canon here? They believe that Scripture is best. It is regarded by Christians as inerrant and the inscripturated words of God Himself (whom we all see as the ultimately Authority among us); it is knowable by all (we can all equally read the words on the pages) and it is alterable by none (none can change those words). And since it is God’s very inscripturated words and inerrant, we regard it as reliable. We think it a sound norma normans. Some (namely the RCC, LDS as well generally all cults) reject the Rule of Scripture, but not because they have a better candidate for the function but because each rejects accountability for the doctrines of itself, requiring instead that all just accept whatever doctrine that teacher exclusively “with docility.” We disagree on the issue of accountability of doctrines.
BTW, while it is true that the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans is nowhere specifically taught in Scripture (VERY few praxis is!), we do have it exampled many, many times - some 50 times by Jesus Himself, from the arrival of the very first Scripture some 3,400 years ago when the Ten Commandments were embraced as normative. And we are told - over and over and over - to beware of false teachers (and none is exempted) thus implying accountability for teachers, and we have Jesus praising the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for norming them, and even for arbitrating the issue and declaring them false; Jesus praised them for this indicating that accountability and norming of teachers is praiseworthy rather than condemnable (Rev. 2:2).
I hope that helps.
Pax
- Josiah
N
nuntym
Guest
Main Entry: un·ac·count·able
Pronunciation: \ˌən-ə-ˈkau̇n-tə-bəl
Function: adjective
Date: 1643
1 : not to be accounted for : inexplicable, strange
2 : not to be called to account : not responsible
— un·ac·count·abil·i·ty -ˌkau̇n-tə-ˈbi-lə-tē\ noun
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unaccountable
Unaccountable, eh? If some organization wants to be unaccountable, then that organization should hide or destroy all its records of its affairs, all its documents from everyone.
But the thing is, the Catholic Church HAS opened everything for the world. She gave everyone all her teachings, all her documents, all her trials, disasters and victories for all to judge. All that had happened to her, all the consequences of her actions, you can read in any reputable history book. And in the end, in the final judgement, the whole Church knows that all that she and her children had done will be revealed to be either true or false before the King. What she said was that the faithful should believe and be docile to her, but if one is not faithful, then who is stopping that someone like you to leave her? If she did not want anyone to question her, then why all of this paper trails, eh?
Is that being unaccountable, AmericanJosiah?
What the Church has done, in effect, has shown the world: “This is what we have believed for thousands of years, from the time our Master has given all this wisdom and knowledge to me. I used it for my children that they may know our Lord and Master, and that they may know our Master has never leaved us. You may see and judge my actions over the millenia, and it is up to you to judge their veracity. If you are convinced, then welcome, my child. But if not, I will have no choice but cut you off from the benefits you can acquire from me (which unfortunately you might not even believe) so as not to harm my children. But I am always here waiting for you to come back, when you change your mind and become convinced, for as the Master has promised, not even the gates of Hades will prevail against me, and I will always be here until the end of time.”
So again, you cannot accuse the Church of unaccountability because she has opened her doors to the world and her children, to be judged by history, her children, the world, and ultimately God.
Unlike you who still cannot define a simple basic term of a doctrine that you are defending.
J
JoeT777
Guest
norma -ae f. [a rule , standard].
can you find any of the early Church doctors or fathers that use the term “norma normans”; say before 1500 A.D.
As best I can tell this is something that came from Luther. It seems he used it to teach his schism. I can’t find where it was used as a general rule in the Catholic Church - especially by St. Thomas. It was used in Luther’s teaching to turn people away from the Catholic faith by establishing a rule other than the Church.
JoeT
D
Drawmack
Guest
Okay, so then when it comes to the Sacraments those were not agreed on until their first official proclamation by counsel in the 1200’s. It’s one or the other. Either counsels affirm what is believed or counsels decide what is believed. So, if you expect me to take this as clarification to that conundrum then I will apply it as such to the sacraments and expect you to back me up.
D
Drawmack
Guest
That is simply not a logically valid statement.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
All one has to do is evade the whole issue and rather just insist that all accept as correct whatever self says “with docility.” Read your Catechism # 87.
No, that would be a creedal statement, the proclamation of the position.
The requirement that all just accept it as true “with docility” “as God speaking” is an evasion of accountability.
Any could say, “Mary was 15 feet tall and had pink hair.” That, then, would be the proclamation of the position. “Just accept it as correct with docility as God speaking” is an evasion, a circumvention of accountability for it. Read the following, "“Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms.” (Catechism # 87). The Handbook of The Catholic Church (page 137), the opening to the chapter on Authority, states, “When someone asks the Catholic where he finds the substantiation for the teachings of the Church, the answer is: from the teaching authority. This authority consists of the Pope and the bishops in association with him. The Catholic, thus, is freed from any doctrinal questions and lives in quiet certainty that the doctrine of the Catholic Church is the doctrine of Christ himself, for Christ said, ‘whoever hears you hears me’.” Have you studied the epistemology in this matter in the LDS and all the cults? If not, I highly recommend that you do.
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Having departed from its topic this thread is now closed.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/23hofvljpg.gif
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/23hofvljpg.gif
- Status