Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[PRmerger]

And the historic definition, too.

I dunno 'bout that.

Yeah, I know. They’re wrong.

But who speaketh authoritatively as the voice of Sola Scriptura?

PR, this is the first time my defense of SS has been refuted on the grounds that I am too Catholic. I am rendered speechless.

Jon

I would love, love, LOVE to be a fly on the wall and witness a conversation between you and a nominal, lump-in-the-pew Catholic, with you setting her straight. You would run circles around her and I would be applauding with my little wings from the wall!

 

[PRmerger]

[sign]Brilliant![/sign]

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/graveyard/17556811/images/1326707042349.gif

 

[PRmerger]

Again Jon if I may, you have not shown a scripture where we pray to a saint, or angels or those elders in heaven.

It’s right after the verse that says that we have to show what we believe has to be found in Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

I am wondering if we have scripture because of an authority to say so. Is it corporate authority ?

Yes–the corpus of Christ.

Is it individual authority, or both ?

It was the Magisterium–the Catholic bishops–who discerned for you and me the table of contents of the NT.

And let us not forget that God says so also. How was it done in the old testament ? Jesus certainly quoted scripture, authenticated their Godly authority. Did the Jews, Israel ever convene to cannonize the books ? How did they decide ?

They didn’t decide. They did not have a Magisterium to discern these things…and thus there was no consensus on the Jewish canon.

So I would think individually and corporately we have “authority” to decide.

Interesting.

So you give this guy the authority to declare that all of the epistles written by Paul are diabolical?

Post 712 showed the process of our forefathers in the faith… As you stated scripture comes from Jesus (yes, thru apostles/writers,early church etc.) and it is finally Jesus that gives the full assurance to anything worth knowing, including what is scripture…

Exactly. This is Sacred Tradition in action.

That is why I say you are not a Sola Scriptura advocate, but actually acknowledge the authority of Sacred Tradition…

I know you want me to kowotw to the authority of the CC for giving us scripture.

Well, it is the logical conclusion, is it not?

Thus far what you have been saying is analogous to this:

Catholics: All female mammals can make milk. Cows make milk. Therefore, cows are mammals.

Poco: I agree with your first two sentences. But let’s just agree to disagree on your conclusion.

 

[PRmerger]

As I recall you had a bit of difficulty acknowledging that Jesus used the "authority " of Israel in giving us the Old Testament writings.

Jesus did not defer to the authority of Israel. As if!

 

[Per_Crucem]

But who speaketh authoritatively as the voice of Sola Scriptura?

Me…since you asked

 

[Per_Crucem]

They didn’t decide. They did not have a Magisterium to discern these things…and thus there was no consensus on the Jewish canon.

True…but that didn’t absolve the Jews from having the obligation to obey it, no? Jesus didn’t say, “Well, since your teaching authority is not infallible and you can’t really know that Scripture is Scripture, you really don’t have to listen to it when it talks about Me.”

Just an observation.

Well, it is the logical conclusion, is it not?

I would say that it is, inasmuch as we recognize that the Church was guided by the Spirit to discern the voice of Christ in the Scriptures. I suppose, though, the burden for Catholics is to demonstrate that that particular Church is 100% identifiable with the Roman communion in exclusion to everything else.

 

[Porknpie]

Well, not all Churches that use the same apostolic Tradition limit the canon to just 73 books.

Jon

Hi Jon!

True and restated, they are unified in having at least have 73 books in their bible, all of which are considered inspired and inerrant.

Beyond 73, I would say someone is right and someone is wrong on what is inspired and inerrant. Answer that and you answer which Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to all Truth.

IMHO.

 

[mlz]

Here is scriptural basis for confession and quotes from early church fathers about confession.

scripturecatholic.com/confession.html

I LOVE this website.

Very good, if only those questioning it would actually read and study this…? At one time, I would not have been ready, so we must be patient, encourage and pray.
But to my dear brothers and sisters in Christ this is a good site to study from. (also, I recommend …if you dareto check out biblechristiansociety.com which has free CD’s to listen to that can help you understand the Catholic faith from a biblical view

Blessings to all,
mlz

 

[PRmerger]

True…but that didn’t absolve the Jews from having the obligation to obey it, no?

To obey their Scripture and Tradition? Well, no, it didn’t absolve them. They were bound to their Scripture and Tradition as well as you are now bound to the Word of God.

Not sure what your point is here?

I would say that it is, inasmuch as we recognize that the Church was guided by the Spirit to discern the voice of Christ in the Scriptures.

Excellent!

Then you believe that the Church was given the charism of infallibility? (At least as far as the canon of the NT goes)

I suppose, though, the burden for Catholics is to demonstrate that that particular Church is 100% identifiable with the Roman communion in exclusion to everything else.

If your church has the 7 sacraments, and can trace its bishops all the way to the Apostles, then go for it!

 

[Jon_S_1]

Not sure but didn’t CC flip flop on the slavery issue ?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Per_Crucem]

To obey their Scripture and Tradition? Well, no, it didn’t absolve them. They were bound to their Scripture and Tradition as well as you are now bound to the Word of God.

Not sure what your point is here?

No, just the Scripture. Were they obligated to obey Scripture as the word of God irrespective of whether they could infallibly define what the Old Testament was? Or irrespective of what Jewish tradition said was or was not canonical?

Excellent!

Then you believe that the Church was given the charism of infallibility? (At least as far as the canon of the NT goes)

I don’t even bother arguing in those terms, as I said waaay back when the thread first started. Infallibility is irrelevant since both of us believe they got it right, by virtue of being guided by the Holy Spirit. I would put the emphasis on Him.

If your church has the 7 sacraments, and can trace its bishops all the way to the Apostles, then go for it!

Who determines that 7 sacraments is a requirement to be considered the Church that received the canon of Scripture? Where is the evidence that there were 7 sacraments when the canon was even received, considered the numbering of the sacraments fluctuated throughout early church history?

And by what criteria is being able to trace one’s bishops all the way back to the apostles a qualifier?

 

[Jon_S_1]

And by what criteria is being able to trace one’s bishops all the way back to the apostles a qualifier?

If your church does not have such a line it means one of two things.

1. at some point Christ and he Holy Spirit let the church fail

Or

1. God provided new revelation such as a prophet to change/alter the faith that was given.

 

[Per_Crucem]

If your church does not have such a line it means one of two things.

1. at some point Christ and he Holy Spirit let the church fail

Or

1. God provided new revelation such as a prophet to change/alter the faith that was given.

Can you demonstrate that both points are anything other than non-sequitors?

You’d have to demonstrate that it is anywhere stated that Christ and the Holy Spirit would fail if a line of bishops were broken. Can you provide anything to demonstrate the truth of the proposition?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Can you demonstrate that both points are anything other than non-sequitors?

You’d have to demonstrate that it is anywhere stated that Christ and the Holy Spirit would fail if a line of bishops were broken. Can you provide anything to demonstrate the truth of the proposition?

So I suppose you would claim that the church can go from the time of Christ to today with no leadership or teaching, and drastic changes in practice?

 

[Per_Crucem]

So I suppose you would claim that the church can go from the time of Christ to today with no leadership or teaching, and drastic changes in practice?

No, not at all. The church cannot go without the same apostolic teaching or a consistent liturgical practice. Those things are not, however, of necessity dependent on who laid hands on whom.

 

[Jon_S_1]

No, not at all. The church cannot go without the same apostolic teaching or a consistent liturgical practice. Those things are not, however, of necessity dependent on who laid hands on whom.

I must disagree.

As a evangelical protestant I saw what happens when all it takes to be “ordained” is to get a masters degree from a seminary.

Everyone and their uncle hangs a shingle “first whatever church of wherever”

The Bishops. And the strict succession is a key instrument of the safeguarding of the faith.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I must disagree.

As a evangelical protestant I saw what happens when all it takes to be “ordained” is to get a masters degree from a seminary.

Everyone and their uncle hangs a shingle “first whatever church of wherever”

Perhaps. No real disagreement there when it comes to some churches with respect to how they handle ordinations. I’m not sure a master’s degree is something to snort at though, is it?

The Bishops. And the strict succession is a key instrument of the safeguarding of the faith.

I wouldn’t agree. It is maintaining apostolic teaching that is the key instrument. It doesn’t matter if bishop X had a hundred other bishops lay hands on him. If the bishop proceeds to teach error, it becomes irrelevant.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Perhaps. No real disagreement there when it comes to some churches with respect to how they handle ordinations. I’m not sure a master’s degree is something to snort at though, is it?

I wouldn’t agree. It is maintaining apostolic teaching that is the key instrument. It doesn’t matter if bishop X had a hundred other bishops lay hands on him. If the bishop proceeds to teach error, it becomes irrelevant.

The masters degree is only as good as where it comes from. There are plenty of “pastor mills” out there.

I agree with your point on succession and the real requirement being the preservation of apostolic teaching.

How is that then measured???

Ultimately, as a Lutheran, I would ask you what makes you believe that thousands of bishops in the church over 1500 years got it wrong, but one scrupulous priest got it right?

 

[Novocastrian]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/John-Krasinski-no.gif

I have a problem with this. On the one hand, we’re always told that the Catholic Church really is more than the Pope, and that even the doctrinal teaching authority of the Church is vested in the whole episcopate, etc. Yet on the other, when an inconvenient fact like, oh, I don’t know, long centuries in which faithful Catholics in good standing were able without censure to own other human beings as slaves, then suddenly we revert to the idea that a few encyclicals in the 15th century mean that the Roman Church is untainted in any way by the actions of some of its most prominent members.

For the very mixed record of the Roman Church on slavery, see Pope Paul III, who on the one hand acted very commendably in trying to prevent aggression against native Americans, but at the same time sanctioned the enslavement of those hostile to Christians, as well as Muslims in Europe, and who in the 1540s affirmed the basic permissibility of owning and trading in slaves in the city of Rome itself.