SS practicing Christian: What do you say Scripture is?

[Lenten_ashes]

People sometimes cling to a point of view rather than sound reason. We all do it. I don’t seem to understand the SS point of view the way protestants do.
Protestants don’t seem to understand the personalist mature of Tradition, or at least the necessitated continuity of it.

Indeed

What I have learned from my time in the Anglican Church and also reading this forum, is that their are different shades of SS.

The ones who always say, “where is that in the bible” are totally irrational and I cant even begin to talk to them. If you can’t grasp the simple concept of their being Truth outside the bible, then you have essentially placed common sense on ignore.

 

[rcwitness]

How would you describe the definition and practice of sola scriptura with these 3 early theologians?

To these men, who were profoundly in communion with the Bishop of Rome, they devoted to Scripture and regarded it as materially sufficient for the salvation of all men. Sufficient to light our path in faith and morals, and support Church doctrine. It is necessary to be knowledgeable about Jesus.

 

[benhur]

Which is why they took it upon their persons to make determinations about what was superlative and distinct etc…?
Sorry, the contradiction just begs the observation…

Hi clem,

Not really . Did Mary feel equal/above authoritatively because of whom she conceived and delivered to the world ? Was she not told from above just what she carried ?

Some Writ is declared Writ. Most Writ is of the apostles . On that there is no discernment needed.

You make too much of canon determination. We had bibles way before that council at end of 4th century. Judaism did not have one council on the matter at Jesus’s time, not one. And don’t get me wrong. SS does not deny the gratitude of the foundation of the receiving Church in the regard of Writ/canon etc…

Again, the Church and Writ have different kind of authority.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

So what Writ is doesn’t matter as long as it is invoked as superior in authority? That doesn’t make much sense

Hi Sy,

The way you put it then it doesn’t make sense. Just that you put incorrectly to what SS is.

Canon does matter. Just that because she is recipient and caretaker of God’s Word , that she even carries Truth on her back (pillars) , does not make her equal authoritatively to that which she carries. Her value is equal , but the authority is distinct. The Church is to be Scriptural, but Scripture is Scripture infallibly, regardless of the Church.

In that case the Quran, Bhagvad Gita, etc can all be invoked by their respective faithful and the ‘agree to disagree’ or “you’re insane” arguments start to fly

Not sure what you are getting at. it is not either or. SS does not do away with what is Christianity to this world.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

I agree.

Scripture is an uncontested source of Divine Revelation. It is materially sufficient to guide us in all matters of faith.

If SS is defined by things that St Athanasius, St Jerome, and St Augustine have expressed, then I agree with SS. And if SS is practiced like these men practiced, i am all for it!

Hi rc,

Well thank you . We are very close. From my understanding things evolved and took a pivotal turn in 1500’s, leading us to this whole discussion.

Blessings

 

[thecolorsblend]

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)

The Church requires assent and obedience to her teachings. Those who disagree are responsible for changing whatever is necessary to bring their lives and beliefs into conformance. Should they refuse to do so, there are consequences. In the event of a disagreement, a Catholic can consult his priest to find answers.

By contrast, the Protestant model manifestly allows adherents to reject anything at all with which they disagree without any real oversight, even (and especially) things printed in plain language in Sacred Scripture. Indeed, it isn’t difficult to find Protestants who deny Our Lord’s virgin birth, deity, miracles, resurrection or any other aspect of Him.

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

I can admit that disagreement happens… in violation of the Church’s teachings. It is not permitted.

With Protestantism, it cannot realistically be stopped.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

Well thank you . We are very close. From my understanding things evolved and took a pivotal turn in 1500’s, leading us to this whole discussion.

Blessings

I think it was very important for the early Church Father’s to Confirm a canon, so that the Church would be strong in the faith. Attacks came so much more complicated all the time!

In the beginning, the Church had the Apostles. And in the beginning of this (the early Church days) great signs were done so that the people were fearful of them! They (and their disciples) left us the inspired written accounts and messages of the revelation of Jesus.

Pope Damasus was in office during a large portion of this process of Confirming Scripture. He seemed to be very interested in settling the Canon and moving forward with it. Was he the first one? No, I don’t think so. Was he one of the most important instruments in the process? I think so. He had a very close connection to Athanasius the year before Athanasius’ Easter letter, then he supposedly pronounced the Canon at a Council in 374, and also 382. Maybe Athanasius related what he knew to Damasus, or Athanasius learned something from Damasus. We dont really know. He also commissioned St Jerome to the task of the Vulgate. This was a big deal then! The next big deal came with the printing press.

Through all this, nothing has changed with the Church’s authority and what the Scriptures always have been. But generations come and go, with some men showing great wisdom and faith, while others lacking in virtue.

The 1500’s were rough. And the Church needed reform, but moved slowly (and maybe awkwardly). But it always needs reform! The latest major one was the sex scandal! There is always turmoil, trials and ugliness.

Is Scripture Alone, a principle that the reformation brought back to heal the Church? Or was the desire for leaders to follow the principle of her own Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium what we actually needed?

I think the Faith eventually works out the heresies and hypocrates. I’m great full to be in the Catholic Church! I believe she is the Ark of Noah, and outside of which there is no salvation. And I believe this is what Hebrews 11 is saying in essence:

And all these, though well attested by their faith, did not receive what was promised,**since God had foreseen something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

 

[benhur]

Is Scripture Alone, a principle that the reformation brought back to heal the Church? Or was the desire for leaders to follow the principle of her own Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium what we actually needed?

hi rc,

ss did not propose no church or council or magisterium. all luther proposed was that all such authorities have Writ as the distinctive, superlative (Augustine’s term) norm. In that regard scripture is alone. The church, magisterium councils are to be "scriptural .Pretty simple.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

hi rc,

ss did not propose no church or council or magisterium. all luther proposed was that all such authorities have Writ as the distinctive, superlative (Augustine’s term) norm. In that regard scripture is alone. The church, magisterium councils are to be "scriptural .Pretty simple.

Blessings

We agree about what Scripture is. What we disagree about, is whether the individual has more authority than the Bishop of Rome, when it comes to preaching particular meanings of Scripture. This is the whole matter.

In Scripture, those who were preaching, teaching and ordained, we’re done so by either Jesus Himself or those appointed by Him.

 

[benhur]

We agree about what Scripture is.

Hi rc,

Yes, amen.

What we disagree about, is whether the individual has more authority than the Bishop of Rome, when it comes to preaching particular meanings of Scripture. This is the whole matter

.Perhaps, something about personal conscience and conviction also But it is more than* just *an "individual’’. That is it could be another bishop, or church, or magisterium, or council, that may be contrary to Pope. It is also question of infallibility in that Pope in his teaching…

In Scripture, those who were preaching, teaching and ordained, we’re done so by either Jesus Himself or those appointed by Him

And the best ones are those appointed/chosen by Jesus, but confirmed by the Body and fellow presbyters

Blessings.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

Yes, amen. .Perhaps, something about personal conscience and conviction also But it is more than* just *an "individual’’. That is it could be another bishop, or church, or magisterium, or council,

yes. And what constitutes “going to the Church” for resolution and Confirmation? Even a Bishop or a synod of Bishops may not constitute the highest level of “taking it to the Church”.

And the best ones are those appointed/chosen by Jesus, but confirmed by the Body and fellow presbyters

I didn’t correctly write my thought in that post. In Scripture, there were those appointed by Jesus in His person and physical body. Then, others ordained by them. Also, the Church would choose, lay on hands, and send men in the Church to ministries.

This all relies on a succession of Church leaders with authority and a body of confirmed Teaching to draw from. Scripture is the foundation, and the norm of the Gospel. It cannot be contradicted, or parts added or taken away. Doctrine, can only continue to Confirm and explain divine revelation. This is a development because of our human growth as a living Church. But Scripture contains a fullness and hidden abundance of Truth. A wellspring of heavenly treasure.

 

[benhur]

yes. And what constitutes “going to the Church” for resolution and Confirmation? Even a Bishop or a synod of Bishops may not constitute the highest level of “taking it to the Church”.

I didn’t correctly write my thought in that post. In Scripture, there were those appointed by Jesus in His person and physical body. Then, others ordained by them. Also, the Church would choose, lay on hands, and send men in the Church to ministries.

This all relies on a succession of Church leaders with authority and a body of confirmed Teaching to draw from. Scripture is the foundation, and the norm of the Gospel. It cannot be contradicted, or parts added or taken away. Doctrine, can only continue to Confirm and explain divine revelation. This is a development because of our human growth as a living Church. But Scripture contains a fullness and hidden abundance of Truth. A wellspring of heavenly treasure.

Yes, pretty much an amen that Scripture is the superlative gift in Truth succession, to be used by successive leaders.

Blessings

 

[jlhargus]

Yes, pretty much an amen that Scripture is the superlative gift in Truth succession, to be used by successive leaders.

Blessings

Yes Scripture is the superlative gift in Truth, but interpretations apart from the Apostolic Succession, in union with the holder of the keys, are not always correct. We clearly see that with thousands of contradicting interpretations.

 

[rcwitness]

Scripture is the foundation, and the norm of the Gospel.

I should phrase this better, since Scripture came after the Gospel was entrusted to the Church.

The foundation of the Gospel is Jesus. The Gospel was revealed to Peter and the Apostles. Jesus founded His Church to minister the Gospel. He inspired founding leaders to write down the Sacred Traditions of the Gospel, and then used Church authorities (Bishops in Communion with Rome) to confirm and establish the body of Scripture (Canon).

Scripture is the Word of God, which has no authority above it. The Magisterium in Communion with the See of Peter, has authority to confirm divine interpretation. This authority is from Christ. It is no less authorative than Scripture. The Church is not the source of her authority any more than the authority which the writers of the Scriptures possessed when writing Scripture. And furthermore, Interpretation of Scripture and it’s authoritative confirmation is NOT revelation itself. Scripture and Tradition is Revelation.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I should phrase this better, since Scripture came after the Gospel was entrusted to the Church.

The foundation of the Gospel is Jesus. The Gospel was revealed to Peter and the Apostles. Jesus founded His Church to minister the Gospel. He inspired founding leaders to write down the Sacred Traditions of the Gospel, and then used Church authorities (Bishops in Communion with Rome) to confirm and establish the body of Scripture (Canon).

Scripture is the Word of God, which has no authority above it. The Magisterium in Communion with the See of Peter, has authority to confirm divine interpretation. This authority is from Christ. It is no less authorative than Scripture. The Church is not the source of her authority any more than the authority which the writers of the Scriptures possessed when writing Scripture. And furthermore, Interpretation of Scripture and it’s authoritative confirmation is NOT revelation itself. Scripture and Tradition is Revelation.

The Truth within all of these streams flow from the same source - the Most Holy Trinity. Why protestantism keeps pitting one against the other is beyond my understanding. The only reason I can come up with is that some or the other group has a preset interpretation (Luther, or Calvin, or Zwingli, or the pastor in the garagechurch) that can only fit with this concocted view (which makes easy soundbytes when preaching against Apostolic Christianity), which doesn’t fit properly anyway.

 

[rcwitness]

The Truth within all of these streams flow from the same source - the Most Holy Trinity. Why protestantism keeps pitting one against the other is beyond my understanding. The only reason I can come up with is that some or the other group has a preset interpretation (Luther, or Calvin, or Zwingli, or the pastor in the garagechurch) that can only fit with this concocted view (which makes easy soundbytes when preaching against Apostolic Christianity), which doesn’t fit properly anyway.

That’s probably true. SS gives each denomination the same authority to hold to different interpretations and still claim to adhere to the same authority.

Their pretense for this is that we will only know who is correct after this life.

 

[alwayswill]

That’s probably true. SS gives each denomination the same authority to hold to different interpretations and still claim to adhere to the same authority.

…

well lets work through that
SS practicing Christians who reach different conclusions/ interpretations believe their interpretation is correct and in complete agreement with their authority ;i.e. Scripture.

IOW they are not rejecting their authorities writings: but they believe their interpretation is correct compared to someone else’s different interpretation.
Can you agree that is true?

Well aren’t there Catholic laity, Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals who reach different conclusions/ interpretations and believe their interpretation is correct and in complete agreement with their authority ;i.e. The Catholic Church?

IOW they are not rejecting their authorities writings: but they believe their interpretation is correct compared to someone else’s different interpretation.

Is that also true?

 

[Abu]

Alwayswill #536
well lets work through that
SS practicing Christians who reach different conclusions/ interpretations believe their interpretation is correct and in complete agreement with their authority ;i.e. Scripture.

IOW they are not rejecting their authorities writings: but they believe their interpretation is correct compared to someone else’s different interpretation.
Can you agree that is true?

Well aren’t there Catholic laity, Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals who reach different conclusions/ interpretations and believe their interpretation is correct and in complete agreement with their authority ;i.e. The Catholic Church?

IOW they are not rejecting their authorities writings: but they believe their interpretation is correct compared to someone else’s different interpretation.
Is that also true?

The fact that you produce disagreement continually, as though truth doesn’t matter, is at the warp and woof of your obsessions.

For the reality is that apart from Protestants having given up much of Christ’s truths through His Church, the fact that some prelates in the Catholic Church may and do dilute or disregard doctrine or dogma, makes them dissenters, not real Catholics.

There is no licit dissent from doctrine or dogma, and I am not talking about views and non-Magisterial comments which may also create confusion.

 

[rcwitness]

well lets work through that
SS practicing Christians who reach different conclusions/ interpretations believe their interpretation is correct and in complete agreement with their authority ;i.e. Scripture.

IOW they are not rejecting their authorities writings: but they believe their interpretation is correct compared to someone else’s different interpretation.
Can you agree that is true?

Well aren’t there Catholic laity, Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals who reach different conclusions/ interpretations and believe their interpretation is correct and in complete agreement with their authority ;i.e. The Catholic Church?

IOW they are not rejecting their authorities writings: but they believe their interpretation is correct compared to someone else’s different interpretation.

Is that also true?

Catholics who choose an interpretation or practice opposed to the Church are called dissenters. This means they are in need of reconciliation with Jesus.

 

[alwayswill]

Catholics who choose an interpretation or practice opposed to the Church are called dissenters. This means they are in need of reconciliation with Jesus.

that is not the scenario I just described
I asked this:

Well aren’t there Catholic laity, Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals who reach different conclusions/ interpretations and believe their interpretation is correct and in complete agreement with their authority ;i.e. The Catholic Church?

IOW they are not rejecting their authorities writings: but they believe their interpretation is correct compared to someone else’s different interpretation.

I specifically stated “they are not rejecting their authorities writings and believe their interpretation is correct and in complete agreement with their authority :”

Are there laity, Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals who believe they are interpreting the Catholic Church’s teachings correctly but are in disagreement with other laity, Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals who believe they are interpreting the Catholic Church’s teachings correctly?