The Sola Scriptura Contradiction

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholicray
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vivnes said:
Cardinal Manning in his book on the Sacred Heart, denoted Calvin for tearing the sacraments from the Church, as “tearing down the walls”
Click to expand...
Your image isn’t loading.

I’m not sure what’s meant by “tearing the sacraments from the Church.”
 
The Cardinal was speaking of his nation and the Anglicans in a positively light. But he also spoke of Luther and Calvin. The former “tore the roof” by his false opinion on justification, and the latter “tore the walls” by his false opinion of the sacraments.

You would have to read the book to be informed by a similitude, and thus your intellect will perceive the source. (cf. Summa Theologica I, q.12, a. 9, c.)
 
Last edited:
vivnes said:
The Cardinal was speaking of his nation and the Anglicans in a positively light. But he also spoke of Luther and Calvin. The former “tore the roof” by his false opinion on justification, and the latter “tore the walls” by his false opinion of the sacraments.
Click to expand...
To be clear – I’m no great defender of Calvin, nor his view of the Sacraments.

I just think Zwingli is much more of a villain in this matter than Calvin is. Calvin at least believed in Sacraments, even if his understanding of them was poor. But Zwingli simply denied them.
 
Aristotle said in some way (this off the top of my head, sorry my internet is down for now) a small error in the beginning is a larger one in the end.
 
Last edited:
I agree. A large conclusion that is based on a lot of truth and one small error is a large error.
 
HopkinsReb said:
To be clear – I’m no great defender of Calvin, nor his view of the Sacraments.

I just think Zwingli is much more of a villain in this matter than Calvin is. Calvin at least believed in Sacraments, even if his understanding of them was poor. But Zwingli simply denied them.
Click to expand...
The biggest thing about Calvin’s view of the Sacraments is that he had a weird view of the incarnation. That is what caused him to skew his view of the sacraments.
 
AmbroseSJ said:
40.png
Emeraldlady:
I know. Sola Scriptura is held as the infallible denial that God reveals Truth to men in any other forum than the Scriptures.
Click to expand...
Ok, I HAVE to chime in with a pet peeve of mine in this thread. Scripture is NOT “infallible” it is inerrant.
Click to expand...
Why are you citing my post? I didn’t call Scripture infallible. I referred to the Protestant ‘decree’ denying that God reveals Himself to man in any other forum that the Scriptures, as basically having the force of infallibility to them.
 
catholicray said:
Sola scriptura - Wikipedia
Defined here as “Sole infallible rule of faith”

Makes sense as you would have to believe that to reject the Church.
Click to expand...
Ambrosesj seemed to think I was calling the actual Scriptures ‘infallible’ as opposed to ‘inerrant’. When we are talking of something being infallible though, we are talking of a decree or a doctrine or some sort of statement made. It is definitely a glaring dissociation that Luther made an ex biblical declaration that only what is written in the bible has the guaranteed force of the Word of God. He is speaking alongside the Scriptures to make the claim that no one can speak ‘alongside the Scriptures’.
 
Last edited:
“He is speaking alongside the Scriptures to claim that no one can speak alongside the Scriptures”

Logical loop? or Paradox? Both perhaps?

And of course my argument is God can speak alongside the Scriptures through fallible men. Just to stay on point.

…indeed this is interesting because I hold that paradoxes may indeed exist but it would seem that there is a method of establishing the truth value of a paradox…
 
Last edited:
catholicray said:
And of course my argument is God can speak alongside the Scriptures through fallible men. Just to stay on point.
Click to expand...
Yes and that is manifestly seen in the hundreds of years prior to the canon of Scripture and then subsequently in the years that men of God were required to denounce by the authority of the Holy Spirit, misinterpretations of what was written.
 
May I ask a question? Which scriptures as we don’t have the originals. Scholars are pretty sure that what we have is accurate but there is no way to be absolutely 100% sure. There may be minor or even major variations that could effect the interpretation of some passages. We just don’t know!

With Catholicism you have the the Church fathers and Tradition to back you up and feel confident but Protestants that reject those sources are kind of up a creek. Or do those sects of Protestantism deny that the originals could have ANY differences from what we have now? That could be a problem if any early copy is found…
 
Last edited:
HopkinsReb said:
Calvin spiritualized the Sacraments; Zwingli denied them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s what I meant by finding a “middle ground”. I’m not 100% sure of the historical development of these doctrines, but I’ve generally seen it presented as Zwingli having very radical ideas of the sacraments (or lack thereof as he would have seen it), Luther and Zwingli getting into major debates over the matter, and in the midst of that ongoing debate, Calvin started presenting a middle ground.
vivnes said:
Cardinal Manning in his book on the Sacred Heart, denoted Calvin for tearing the sacraments from the Church, as “tearing down the walls”
Click to expand...
I’d need more context, because saying “Calvin tore down the sacraments” on its own doesn’t make much sense. Traditionally, Calvinism has maintained at least the sacraments of baptism and Lord’s Supper. And as a former Calvinist, I believed in sacraments before becoming Catholic because of Calvinism.
 
Was there a discrepancy or is that a psalm that was unknown? Sorry for my ignorance.
 
Did it cause problems with biblical literalists? What, if any repercussions did it cause?
Thanks!
 
De_Maria said:
But the very act of reading Scripture nullifies the idea of Scripture alone.
Click to expand...
Okay. I was scanning these posts with some replies I have to give but this just baffled me in a very weird way. I would absolutely love for you to explain this more clearly! As in very very clearly!
 
MichaelP3 said:
Okay. I was scanning these posts with some replies I have to give but this just baffled me in a very weird way. I would absolutely love for you to explain this more clearly! As in very very clearly!
Click to expand...
Sure. You’re focusing on the last sentence. But the entire idea includes the sentence that precedes that one.
De_Maria said:
That is a logical incoherence. They have fooled themselves into believing that their own prejudices do not influence their interpretation of Scripture. But the very act of reading Scripture nullifies the idea of Scripture alone.
Click to expand...
In other words, when you read a book, the book is not alone. You are there with it and there is an interplay of ideas. Your prejudices and preconceptions interplay with the ideas the book is presenting. At the same time, you are alive but the book is dead. It is as though you are examining a cadaver. The cadaver can not tell you if you have missed something. It simply lays there and allows you to examine it.

Let me put it like this. When you are reading a book, the book is not alone. You are. The book and the Bible is merely a book, is not alive and can not respond when you take something from within its covers and read it incorrectly.

Hope that helps.
 
That’s a helpful description. I think it compliments the positions posted thus far. Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top