later came to Catholic Answers forums where people seem to be obsessed by it.
It is possibly the major factor in what separates denominations and continues to spawn separations and divisions.
As far as I have ever heard, known or been taught, what Catholics and Patrick Madrid call “Sola Scriptura” is not at all what any Protestant I have ever known believes.
Ad what would that be?
Since there are so many different ideas of what is means, I don’t see how there can be “what Catholics call SS”.
There may be some wacky fringe groups - I’m not at all familiar with what denominations like Westboro Baptist Church, for example, believe - but your typical mainstream evangelical denominations don’t believe what Catholics call Sola Scriptura.
I can’t imagine what that might be but perhaps you will clarify?
For Protestants, it means that the Bible is infallible.
This is an impossible concept for Catholics to apply to the Scriptures, though we believe them to be inspired and inerrant, because “fallibility” refers to the ability to have fault. In order to have fault, one must be able to “act”, which requires a will, discernment, the abilityt to take responsibiliy and inherit the consequences of one’s decisions. These are all qualities of persons, not of writings, however holy.
So we believe that the authors acted infallibly (without fault) in writing the Holy Scriptures, and that the Holy Spirit infallibly protected those writings, and enabled the Church to collect, promulgate and eventually canonize them.
It doesn’t mean that no other authority exists or no tradition exists. It just means that those authorities, knowledge or tradition are subordinate to scripture. Reason, tradition, church authority, the Holy Spirit, etc are all valid as long as they don’t contradict scripture. Scripture is infallible, but human beings are not, church leaders are not, our ability to reason or understand is not, therefore, we must ensure that the fallible is subordinate to the infallible.
Well this is one definition of SS, and I think one that is espoused by Lutherans and Anglicans, but
I was reading this on the SDA site last night:
“Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as the only source of our beliefs. We consider our movement to be the result of the Protestant conviction Sola Scriptura—the Bible as the only standard of faith and practice for Christians.”
Although they call this SS, it is quite different than the definition you have given. I consider this to be “solo scriptura”, since it does not accept reason, tradition or church authority. At least, that is what they profess, though it is not that way in practice.
Catholics seem to think it means that scripture is the only thing available or believed, and that it contains all knowledge.
That is one definition that is forwarded, as above.
But no, I think most Catholics believe that it means that Sacred Tradition (the perspective handed down to us from the Aposltes on how to understand what is written) has been separated from the Scripture, so a multitude of interpretaions result.
I believe that is a perversion of the Protestant belief so you can’t argue your version of Sola Scriptura with a Protestant or use Bible verses to show that your version isn’t true. Protestants already don’t think your version is true and they won’t be using any verses of the Bible to back it up. They won’t have any idea what you are talking about.
I can certainly see your point about not having any idea of what is being talked about, since there are so many different definitions/practices for SS.
I can also see that there are no verses to back it up, since it is a principle that is not found in scripture. It was invented by Luther at the Reformation, and is not part of the deposit of faith made once for all to the Church at the time of the Apostles.
(not SS)
Now with a big grin like that, how could we be?
