P
Peter_J
Guest
youtu.be/5GcJsgqfxU8?t=1m53smy work here is done.
- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
Interesting. Leaving aside what I posted previously, this ^^ isn’t something I’d expect to hear from a Baptist. (Granted, I don’t spend much time on the “Baptist Answers Forum”
.) Sounds more like a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox statement.
I
inocente
Guest
Reverend Lovejoy: “We’re here to bring you back to the one true faith: the Western Branch of American Reform Presby-Lutheranism.”
P
Peter_J
Guest
Sorry, I don’t make jokes about them. I wouldn’t want the Parson to find out.Reverend Lovejoy: “We’re here to bring you back to the one true faith: the Western Branch of American Reform Presby-Lutheranism.”
D
Della
Guest
I’m afraid you misunderstand what I meant by no right Bible–no right Bible can possibly save or damn anyone. I was answering your assertion that not having the right books in the Bible would lead to damnation–which you cited in more colorful language.
I don’t think our OP will mind for it’s more important that these things be made clear than we stick strictly to the thread topic.
The Church does claim exclusive rights to the Scriptures. Indeed, it burned heretical versions and forbid the reading of such versions by the faithful during the reformation. Many of these versions were bad translations made by men with agendas. However, the Church does not tell other ecclesial bodies which Bibles they may use.
In essence what you believe is that every man is his own Magisterium. But where do we get the authority to decide matters of faith and morals for ourselves? Nowhere in Scripture. Indeed, it is forbidden:
2Pt.1[20] First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
[21] because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Christ gave his own authority to his Apostles to “bind and loose” and promised them that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth–as his Apostles. To say that he gave that authority to every man flies in the face of Scripture itself:
Gal.1[6] I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel –
[7] not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
[8] But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
[9] As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
Where did St. Paul get the authority to make such an audacious statement–if every man can decide what constitutes the truth of the Gospel? He received his authority from Christ, who appeared to him and called him to be an Apostle. Obviously those who were troubling his converts thought they were right according to their lights, but St. Paul is definite that they are not–to the point of calling down a curse upon all who dare to usurp God’s authority to decide such matters.
I
inocente
Guest
OK.I’m afraid you misunderstand what I meant by no right Bible–no right Bible can possibly save or damn anyone. I was answering your assertion that not having the right books in the Bible would lead to damnation–which you cited in more colorful language.
I don’t think our OP will mind for it’s more important that these things be made clear than we stick strictly to the thread topic.
Sure, I imagine every religion states which books are sacred to their own faithful.
Can you link where that interpretation of those passages is authorized by your Church then?
I don’t understand how that interpretation squares with the section The Right to Worship God According to One’s Conscience in w2.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem.html
Or vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html
D
Della
Guest
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2036.htm says it well enough, I think. Not only is it the Magisterium’s right, but its duty as given to it by Christ. There are several paragraphs that deal with the Magisterium they are here: ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=magisterium&xsubmit=Search&s=SS.
Freedom of worship isn’t the same thing as declaring who has the authority to decide matters of faith and morals for the faithful. One’s conscience must be well-formed and informed by Church teachings in order for it to be a useful guide. Nowhere does the Church advocate people creating their own doctrines/dogmas based on conscience alone.
To place all protestants in one basket, for anything, is folly. That said, I think many would say the prime belief would be, as Luther said,
”justification is the article by which the church stands and falls.”, or words to that effect
Since scripture provides that the Church maintains the teaching role:
- the Church, in its role to teach
- the Church
- not unlike the various canons outside of the western non-catholic communions, each communion has determined the books of and use of scripture. Now, of course , it would be better if we all used the same canon, but that has always been the case.
- sola scriptura is the practice of holding doctrine accountable to scripture. I guess there may be some communions who think a particular translation is doctrinally the right one, but I can’t name one.
Jon
I
inocente
Guest
That concerns the Church’s authority over the Catholic faithful, but not over other religions.
Whereas Dignitatis Humanae concerns freedom to choose a religion. It defines the Church’s relations with other religions and with states. In accordance with human dignity all persons have a right to religious liberty, free of force or coercion (and this is necessary also to defend against repression of the Church). For example:
*"This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right." - vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html*
c.f. with soul liberty. I think on this at least, Catholic and Baptist principles agree that all persons should be free, and all religions should be free, but if a person decides to join a religion, she must follow the ordinances of that religion.
P
PRmerger
Guest
All of the above is a nonsequitur.
No Catholic here has been arguing that we must coerce people into being Catholic.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
JonNC said:
By your definition the Catholic Church holds sola scriptura!
All Catholic Doctrines are consonant with Scripture. The CCC helpfully notes the Scripture that underlies its doctrines.To be honest, and frank, it is your definition of sola scriptura which is inconsistent with its intended use. The true purpose of SS is to disavow the authority of the Church and exalt private judgement. Otherwise, SS is moot for the reason I mentioned. We can put a “Catholic” light on anything if we interpret it in a way that suits are desires. John Henry Newman was severely censured by the Anglican Church for doing exactly that with the 39 articles in Tract 90.
But if you take note of your wording “holding doctrine accountable to scripture;” there is a distinct call for judgement upon Church doctrine based on private judgement. It may not be explicit enough for some, but it is certainly implicit.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yep. This ^^.By your definition the Catholic Church holds sola scriptura!
To be honest, and frank, it is your definition of sola scriptura which is inconsistent with its intended use. The true purpose of SS is to disavow the authority of the Church and exalt private judgement. Otherwise, SS is moot for the reason I mentioned. We can put a “Catholic” light on anything if we interpret it in a way that suits are desires. John Henry Newman was severely censured by the Anglican Church for doing exactly that with the 39 articles in Tract 90.
But if you take note of your wording “holding doctrine accountable to scripture;” there is a distinct call for judgement upon Church doctrine based on private judgement. It may not be explicit enough for some, but it is certainly implicit.
Since being here on the CAFs I’ve read at least 10 different definitions of SS.
And, of course, deviating from one particular definition of SS is certainly allowed in the Protestant world–for what is a Christian doing but “reforming” or “protesting” the previously held definition of SS.
D
Della
Guest
Indeed.
P
Peter_J
Guest
You don’t accept, then the existence of what many if not most of us call the Christian religion? Or do you not think that is includes Catholics?
I
inocente
Guest
I never intended any such thing, and am very surprised you thought I would.
I
inocente
Guest
Of course Catholics are Christians.
I
inocente
Guest
Agreed, no one has disagreed with Dignitatis Humanae. But it would be strange if anyone did.
You wanted to keep me on the thread, did you have any further points?
P
Peter_J
Guest
Not to be a backseat poster, but the “Of course Catholics are Christians.
” would appear to stem from missing my first question “You don’t accept, then, the existence of what many if not most of us call the Christian religion? Or do you not think that is includes Catholics?”
H
HereticAmI
Guest
Supremely ironic that you wrote all that. Did you miss the part where Paul blames those responsible for that rather grave error in faith and morals:
But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
So call Sha’ul, also called Paolo, the first protestant reformer. He also makes this statement:
And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) – those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me.
And here’s the whole of them, those leading the flock astray:
But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity.
And here’s the most damning line of all:
But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, If you…
In case you missed his point, we have the work known as Galatians because the rock that you claim your church was built on was not straightforward about the truth of the gospel. We might expect his heirs to be subject to error as well, as he was. I might also expect that I too am subject to error. And when you say, anathema, that would be some from James, Cephas aka Peter, Barnabas, and those Jews there in Galatia. At least so long as they were preaching another gospel.
Lastly, so you can’t help but get the Protestant POV:
But when the Pope came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
And would help, rather immensely, if the Pope removed himself from your more temporal matters. Like dividing the world between Spain and Portugal, thereby leaving out both German and English commercial interests. Guess who became the Protestants?
For a bonus freebie, to answer Sha’ul’s also called Paolo’s question:
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
Who bewitched us? Those came from James, Peter, Barnabas and those Jews here in Galatia, that’s who.
And for how grave the moral error on Peter’s part:
Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
That’s pretty egregious. So too is this:
It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.
You see, my friend, for a while there, or more correctly, for certain periods of time, the Jews were freed from the obligation of emperor worship and all that such entailed. They were instead supposed to offer sacrifice, etc., to their God in the name of Caesar (on Caesar’s behalf). Christians, on the other hand, had no such luck. And so some came from James and convinced Peter, and even Barnabas as well, to have the Gentiles adopt the appearance and customs of Jews of that time. For what you apparently don’t get here as well, recall here as well the thrice denial of his Lord. Same as it ever was…It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised,*** and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.*** And so one more denial of his Lord.
And I’m taking it as well that Sha’ul, also called Paolo, was himself persecuted by the Romans, physically, and had the scars to prove it:
Henceforth let no man trouble me; for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.
Now well and truly lastly, you entirely missed this part as well:
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
That would apply to Peter, and even Barnabas. Why Sha’ul, also called Paolo, opposed Peter to his face, because he stood condemned. For preaching another gospel. Resulting, as the text reports, in some others being mutilated.
- Status