SS practicing Christian: What do you say Scripture is?

[rcwitness]

The point of my question is to raise awareness that simply assigning Scripture ultimate and final authority still leaves the community assuming they have Christ’s authority to preach their interpretations.

We adhere to a body of Teachings, from a Church who claims with substantial evidence that stems from Jesus’ appointing Peter as a foundation. It has nothing to do with what Scripture is, since we both agree what it is. It has to do with what we follow as Apostolic Teaching and practice.

 

[jmcrae]

and yet Catholics disagree on the meaning of the teachings of the RCC (not the rejection of the teachings; but the interpretation of the teachings)

Most people know when they are disagreeing with the Bishops and with the Pope, though - and those who are honestly confused are quickly corrected when they ask out loud.

Protestant model:
The highest authority is Scripture:

Which cannot defend itself, or correct anyone’s interpretation. It is defenseless.

Catholics and Protestants agree it is impossible for Scripture to teach conflicting doctrines

Yes.

Different Protestants have different beliefs on what the Bible teaches.
Sola Scriptura has not produced unity of belief

This may well be the understatement of the century, if not the millennium. There are hundreds if not thousands of contradictory Protestant interpretations of Scripture, leading to an uncountable number of different denominations and systems of thought.

The Roman Catholic model
The highest authority is the Roman Catholic Church :

Which produces clarifying information on an almost constant basis.

Catholics claim it is impossible for their Church to teach conflicting doctrines

True. It can’t.

Different Catholics have different beliefs on what the RCC teaches.

A lack of understanding on my part doesn’t mean that the teacher was confused or trying to mislead me.

Sola Ecclesia has not produced unity of belief.

Nothing ever could. But the Church (by means of the Bishops) can actually walk up to people and say, 'Hey, you’ve made a mistake on this, and here is how you can correct it."

Can Catholics admit that the “well catechized” Catholics personally interpret the teachings of their authority (which is the Catholic Church) and reach different conclusions?

Anyone* who is engaged in private interpretation of anything is liable to come to incorrect or incomplete conclusions, because they are beginning with only partial information - that which they already know. The whole point of having a Magisterium and a Church is so that you take advantage of the knowledge that other people who are a lot smarter than you are can give you - especially those who are directly connected into the Holy Tradition.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The last Two pages saw the elevation of the Bible to Quranic proportion. This is not the Christian faith handed down to us from the Apostles. This is the Islamic idea of the ‘eternal Quran’ taken to an absurd protestant context. Now Writ isn’t the written Scripture but an Eternal figure coequal to the Trinity.

Thing is, the Koran lacks context and chronology. It’s pretty much impossible to properly understand it w/o another source (Hadith). Most of Islam understands this and relies on both.

Jews have their Talmud.

Of course we have the entire deposit of the Christian faith, not just the book that sprung forth from it.

Of the 3 Abrahamic faiths which make up most of the world’s religious population, non-Catholic Christians and a few obscure Jewish and Islamic sects are the only ones trying to figure things out by themselves.

So the question, I think, is SS what God had intended for us or is it a human assumption?

 

[alwayswill]

Most people know when they are disagreeing with the Bishops and with the Pope, though - and those who are honestly confused are quickly corrected when they ask out loud.
…
.

during last year’s Synod
On the front page of Catholic.com; in an article from Karl Keating entitled “What Not to Expect from Synods”
Karl writes the following:​

“A few years ago, during the reign of Benedict XVI, these scholars, a man and a woman, were appointed by the Vatican to high posts connected with a then-current synod of bishops. Working closely with the bishops both before and after they came to Rome and with the Roman authorities who arranged for the synod, the pair discovered something surprising: most bishops who come to synods are unprepared to teach anyone much of anything.
…

What the Vatican discovered is that the world’s bishops–not all of them, but most of them–simply haven’t done their homework. At this previous synod, it turned out that most of the bishops showed no knowledge of the writings of Benedict XVI or of his predecessor, John Paul II.

**Many of them hadn’t even read the documents of Vatican II! **(This was more true for bishops from Third World countries, but it applied to bishops in Europe and North America too.)

How could such **unprepared men **expect to know the depth of what Benedict and John Paul had been teaching **if they never read **those popes’ encyclicals and their other writings? How could these bishops maneuver well in the modern world **if they hadn’t even become familiar with what was promulgated at Vatican II?
**
It proved to be an awkward realization for Rome. The men who were expected to go out and spread the word didn’t even know what the word was. And so the synods quietly have become something else.

Instead of being sessions at which learned bishops issue teachings for the masses, they now are sessions at which the bishops themselves are taught the teachings.”​

from catholic.com’s frontpage
most bishops
unprepared to teach
showed no knowledge
unprepared men
didn’t even know what the word was.

---

So I ask; are you sure you will get the correct answer from a Bishop?

 

[alwayswill]

…

Of the 3 Abrahamic faiths which make up most of the world’s religious population, non-Catholic Christians and a few obscure Jewish and Islamic sects are the only ones trying to figure things out by themselves.

So the question, I think, is SS what God had intended for us or is it a human assumption?

SS practicing Christians are NOT trying to figure things out by themselves.

**From Catholic.com
**“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp
Archived here: web.archive.org/web/201003300…4/0402fea3.asp

---

**From NEWADVENT.org **Sola scriptura (“Bible alone”)

…" Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit. …"

---

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.
**
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth.** I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly,** it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken.** Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura** is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.**
-James White—

---

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by Scripture alone”) is the Protestant Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God.

Sola scriptura, however**, does not ignore Christian history and tradition when seeking to understand the Bible.** Rather, it sees the Bible as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

 

[jmcrae]

So I ask; are you sure you will get the correct answer from a Bishop?

I am sure that I will always get the correct answer from the Church - and if my Bishop doesn’t know the answer to something, he will actually just say “I don’t know” - he won’t invoke his own personal “holy spirit” and invent something that sounds good.

 

[alwayswill]

I am sure that I will always get the correct answer from the Church - and if my Bishop doesn’t know the answer to something, he will actually just say “I don’t know” - he won’t invoke his own personal “holy spirit” and invent something that sounds good.

The Pope just had six months to explain the final report from the Synod:
from six months ago this was view
Since the release of the** ambiguous final report** from the Ordinary Synod on the Family last week, orthodox and modernist Catholics have been in heated debates over its correct interpretation.

Catholics and secularists on the "left" have been stating or suggesting in public comments and news reports that the Relazione Finale of the Synod opens up a door for officially allowing Communion for divorced and civilly “remarried” Catholics.
**
Catholics on the “right”** maintain that, since no such door actually exists in the final document, and the Church has already rejected the idea, there is nothing in the document that paves a way or leads to official permission for giving Communion to divorced adulterers.

http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/pope-to-issue-post-synodal-apostolic-exhortation

And from yesterday we have
Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

Pope Francis has avoided making a direct statement on the question of Communion for remarried couples but in a footnote to his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, he has left the question open to debate.

“We must now expect continued, protracted, and perhaps acrimonious debate about how this principle is to be applied in the cases under consideration.”

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/04/08/papal-exhortation-avoids-clear-statement-on-communion/

**Wildly divergent reactions to Pope’s exhortation: a study on the results of ambiguity **

COMMENTARY
April 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – From the mainstream media to Catholic experts, from conservatives to liberals, and everything in between, have come** opposing interpretations** of what Pope Francis means in Amoris Laetitia, his post-Synodal apostolic exhortation released today. Particularly on the central question of admittance to Holy Communion of divorced and remarried Catholics, the document has left the question so open as to cause profound confusion"
lifesitenews.com/news/wildly-divergent-reactions-to-exhortation-a-study-on-the-results-of-ambigui

Have you checked the Catholic news forum discussing Amoris Laetitia: Do you find unified interpretations of an authoritative document?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

SS practicing Christians are NOT trying to figure things out by themselves.

**From Catholic.com
**“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp
Archived here: web.archive.org/web/201003300…4/0402fea3.asp

---

**From NEWADVENT.org **Sola scriptura (“Bible alone”)

…" Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit. …"

---

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.
**
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth.** I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly,** it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken.** Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura** is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.**
-James White—

---

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by Scripture alone”) is the Protestant Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God.

Sola scriptura, however**, does not ignore Christian history and tradition when seeking to understand the Bible.** Rather, it sees the Bible as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

Hi always.

Let’s be real here:

A.) Protestants are not unified even in their own pews. I saw countless disagreements in my 13 years as a Protestant on doctrinal matters. You don’t have search out side the church walls to see the disagreements. I.E, they are trying to figure things out on there own.

B.) The average Protestant(that would exclude more informed folks like yourself and others on this forum) does not know much at all about Church councils or Tradition. If we google-mapped the nearest Baptist church to you and took a poll tomorrow at that Church, how many could name 3 or more councils that took place throughout history?

3.) Not all seminaries are created equal. Some teach up to the year 100AD, then you go to lunch and come back and start discussing Martin Luther’s break. Protestant pastors who receive this sort of formal religious education are not likely to emphasize anything out side the bible(and their personal understanding of it) in regards to the Christian life.

Pax

 

[alwayswill]

Hi always.

Let’s be real here:

A.) Protestants are not unified even in their own pews. I saw countless disagreements in my 13 years as a Protestant on doctrinal matters. You don’t have search out side the church walls to see the disagreements. I.E, they are trying to figure things out on there own.

B.) The average Protestant(that would exclude more informed folks like yourself and others on this forum) does not know much at all about Church councils or Tradition. If we google-mapped the nearest Baptist church to you and took a poll tomorrow at that Church, how many could name 3 or more councils that took place throughout history?

3.) Not all seminaries are created equal. Some teach up to the year 100AD, then you go to lunch and come back and start discussing Martin Luther’s break. Protestant pastors who receive this sort of formal religious education are not likely to emphasize anything out side the bible in regards to the Christian life.

Pax

1)I would expect to find more unified beliefs within the pews of any Protestant church compared to any Catholic Church: Different beliefs in different church vs different belives within the same church

1. the average Catholic doesn’t know what the Immaculate Conception is about: They think it is the birth of Jesus
2. Agreed :there good and bad seminaries

lets be real here

cbsnews.com/news/us-catholics-want-a-younger-more-liberal-pope/

"Catholics don’t think it is necessary to agree with the pope on issues like abortion and birth control in order to be a faithful member of the church.

Eighty-three percent of Catholics said they think it’s possible to disagree with the pope on issues like these and still be a good Catholic,
**
and 78 percent of American Catholics are more likely to follow their own consciences rather than the pope’s teachings (13 percent) on difficult moral issues. "**

If you know what the Catholic Church teaches
and someone tells you they are a GOOD and **FAITHFUL **Catholic,
will you know what they believe?

"Eighty-three percent of Catholics said they think it’s possible to disagree with the Pope on issues like these and still be a good Catholic, "
is a fact

Eighty-three percent of Sola Scriptura Christians said they think it’s possible to disagree with the Bible on issues like these and still be a good Sola Scriptura Christian,
is an impossibility

 

[jmcrae]

1)I would expect to find more unified beliefs within the pews of any Protestant church compared to any Catholic Church: Different beliefs in different church vs different belives within the same church

1. the average Catholic doesn’t know what the Immaculate Conception is about: They think it is the birth of Jesus

And yet, somehow you know differently, which means the information is readily available to anyone who wants to know.

"Catholics don’t think it is necessary to agree with the pope on issues like abortion and birth control in order to be a faithful member of the church.

And again, you know differently, which means the information is readily available for those who are willing to learn. Catechesis can’t solve the problem of hardness of heart.

Eighty-three percent of Catholics said they think it’s possible to disagree with the pope on issues like these and still be a good Catholic,
**
and 78 percent of American Catholics are more likely to follow their own consciences rather than the pope’s teachings (13 percent) on difficult moral issues. "**

And again, you know differently, which means the information is readily available for those who are willing to learn. Catechesis can’t solve the problem of hardness of heart.

If you know what the Catholic Church teaches
and someone tells you they are a GOOD and **FAITHFUL **Catholic,
will you know what they believe?

Unless they are my child or my student, is it any of my business?

I have my own soul to save, and it won’t be saved on the basis of popular opinion, or what my neighbor rejects of the teachings of the Apostles.

In order to be saved, I must be in full communion with the Church established by Jesus Christ, and while there may be a question about whether that Church is some form of Eastern Orthodoxy, or the Roman Catholic Church, it definitely isn’t any form of Protestantism. And I am reasonably convinced that the Roman Catholic Church, headed by the Bishop of Rome, is the lawful successor to Sts. Peter and Paul when they were martyred in Rome.

 

[alwayswill]

…
In order to be saved, I must be in full communion with the Church established by Jesus Christ, and while there may be a question about whether that Church is some form of Eastern Orthodoxy, or the Roman Catholic Church, it definitely isn’t any form of Protestantism. And I am reasonably convinced that the Roman Catholic Church, headed by the Bishop of Rome, is the lawful successor to Sts. Peter and Paul when they were martyred in Rome.

And yet, other Catholics on this very website disagree with your interpretation on that very important subject…
You think your interpretation is correct and they think their interpretation is correct
see here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13816105&postcount=57

thank you for providing that great example for my point

 

[rcwitness]

The big difference is that Catholics who are preaching are ordained men who are subject to Church authority with Church Teaching, if they are Teaching contrary to the faith.

A protestant preacher knows he is not authorized by the Church, but claims he is authorized by God, and is held accountable to no one but men who approve of his preaching.

Btw, there are many preachers who refrain, genuinely, from preaching contrary to the Church. Billy Graham was probably in this vein. It was a basic call to non believers to hear the Scripture message. But some draw people away from the Church Teachings and blatantly raise attention to them and call them false. So there are levels of rejection in preaching.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

1)I would expect to find more unified beliefs within the pews of any Protestant church compared to any Catholic Church: Different beliefs in different church vs different belives within the same church

1. the average Catholic doesn’t know what the Immaculate Conception is about: They think it is the birth of Jesus
2. Agreed :there good and bad seminaries

lets be real here

cbsnews.com/news/us-catholics-want-a-younger-more-liberal-pope/

"Catholics don’t think it is necessary to agree with the pope on issues like abortion and birth control in order to be a faithful member of the church.

Eighty-three percent of Catholics said they think it’s possible to disagree with the pope on issues like these and still be a good Catholic,
**
and 78 percent of American Catholics are more likely to follow their own consciences rather than the pope’s teachings (13 percent) on difficult moral issues. "**

If you know what the Catholic Church teaches
and someone tells you they are a GOOD and **FAITHFUL **Catholic,
will you know what they believe?

"Eighty-three percent of Catholics said they think it’s possible to disagree with the Pope on issues like these and still be a good Catholic, "
is a fact

Eighty-three percent of Sola Scriptura Christians said they think it’s possible to disagree with the Bible on issues like these and still be a good Sola Scriptura Christian,
is an impossibility

In regards to unified beliefs in protestant churches, I would disagree as I have been on both sides of the fence. But we can agree to disagree.

Christianity is a historical faith…2,000 years of history.

And it’s a living faith, it isn’t just a book that ends in the last chapter of Revelation.

So you can be a good Catholic all your life, even a RCIA instructor and you are still learning even into your golden years.

All the tools are there, free of charge in most cases for Catholics to inform and equip themselves. Some choose not to, and hey, it’s their salvation on the line.

If Catholics are floating along disregarding Church teaching in favor of their own contradictory theories, then they are a heretic, Protestant. They cease to be a Catholic in full communion.

 

[jmcrae]

And yet, other Catholics on this very website disagree with your interpretation on that very important subject…
You think your interpretation is correct and they think their interpretation is correct

thank you for providing that great example for my point

Name even one Pope or Bishop who teaches that, outside of invincible ignorance, anyone can be saved without belonging to the Church?

 

[alwayswill]

Name even one Pope or Bishop who teaches that, outside of invincible ignorance, anyone can be saved without belonging to the Church?

guanophore forum elder, with 29,074 posts is a Catholic : right?

so do Catholics believe that Protestants go to hell even if they believe in Christ?

Of course not. The Church teaches that only God can know the heart, and only He can judge. Only He knows who is worthy of eternity with Him, and who is worthy to be without.

We say that there is no salvation outside the One Church founded by Christ because there is no salvation outside of Christ, and He is one with His Holy Bride, the Church. We know that not all those He saves are visibly members of His One Body, but we trust that they are grafted into Him, and therefore, members of His One Body, the Church.

 

[rcwitness]

guanophore forum elder, with 29,074 posts is a Catholic : right?

so do Catholics believe that Protestants go to hell even if they believe in Christ?

First of all, this is not an ordained preacher/priest. Secondly, do you know that this is not an approved understanding of the Teaching?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

guanophore forum elder, with 29,074 posts is a Catholic : right?

so do Catholics believe that Protestants go to hell even if they believe in Christ?

If you are a validly baptized Christian, you are in the Church, just imperfectly and separated from us.

 

[SyroMalankara]

guanophore forum elder, with 29,074 posts is a Catholic : right?

so do Catholics believe that Protestants go to hell even if they believe in Christ?

Catholics believe it is unknown to us who will go to hell. God will judge your degree of belongong to His Church by your heart, your actions and your faith

 

[jmcrae]

guanophore forum elder, with 29,074 posts is a Catholic : right?

She is, but she isn’t a Pope or a Bishop. Do you have anything from a Pope or a Bishop that says most Protestants are definitely saved?

so do Catholics believe that Protestants go to hell even if they believe in Christ?

No one can say who is in Hell, and I am not about to speculate on the eternal fate of most Protestants. I hope in the mercy of God, and I see what commandments Jesus has left for us (eat my flesh, drink my blood, confess your sins), and I’m glad to be a Catholic, so as to be able to obey them.

 

[susanlo]

You realize He was talking to the Apostles? And only those “sent” through them had His authority.

How do we know who has this authority? He said that to the Apostles who died in the 1st century. Obviously this wasn’t the end of the command to: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” We know that Ananias wasn’t an Apostle, but he baptized Paul. Is baptizing allowed by non-apostles/bishops, but all other teaching only done by a certain few? I had never heard that this command was limited to only a select few and that everybody wasn’t supposed to help spread the word of God. This is probably off-topic, but I am brand new to knowing about Apostolic Succession and it seems very confusing to me. Why couldn’t anybody who has been taught by and baptized by a believer continue this command?