What is Sola Scriptura

[AmericanJosiah]

IMHO accepting Scripture as our measuring stick for doctrines is not where Catholicism and Protestantisms differ.

I strongly disagree.

The Catholic Church is strongly opposed to Sola Scriptura. As typically are Catholics. The Catholic Church offers an alternative to the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura). It is popularly expressed as “the three legged stool.” This is:

1. Tradition as chosen, defined and interpreted by The Catholic Church alone.
2. Scripture not in any book or in the words on any page but “in the heart” of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church alone.
3. The Magisterium of The Catholic Church alone as chosen by The Catholic Church alone - and its rulings, decisions, interpretation and arbitrations.
   These 3 equally and inseparably - as 3 sources of ONE stream, all equally true and inerrant and divine.

But this thread is not about Sola Ecclesia Roma, it’s about Sola Scriptura.

we mean no doctrine can contradict Scripture.

1. IMHO, a worthless comment. “There are 6 billion furry brown creatures on the Moon of Endor” doesn’t CONTRADICT Scripture either - but that HARDLY suggests that it’s a dogmatic fact of highest importance and certainty. “Mary had pink hair, 221 children and loved fish tacos” doesn’t CONTRADICT Scripture but are those things thus, ergo, all dogmatic facts? I hope you see my point. IMHO, your comment (often made by Catholics) is meaningless. Now, I PERSONALLY would agree (even as now a Protestant) that no official teaching of The Catholic Church exactly CONTRADICTS Scripture. But that has almost no relevance as to whether all its teachings are thus True.
2. Actually, The Catholic Church claims much more than you do, it claims that all her doctrines are conformed to Scripture. But it’s critical to ask, “WHAT Scripture?” Are we talking about words found somewhere between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21? No, The Catholic Church is talking about the Scripture IN ITS OWN HEART (CCC 113) as interpreted by ITS OWN SELF (CCC 85) so as to agree with the Tradition of its own self. And, of course, the interpretation of itself of the Scriptures in the heart of itself would be WRONG if not in agreement with the Magisterium of its own self which is pleadged to uphold the teachings of its own self, and if not in conformity with the Tradition of its own self as interpreted by its own self. Conversely, the ONLY correct “interpretation” would be the one that agrees with the interpration of The Catholic Church of the Scripture in the heart of itself as interpreted by itself and the Tradition of itself as chosen and interpreted by itself and the view of the Magisterium of itself. It pretty much insures self will always agree with self. It’s not surprising.

.

 

[ralphinal]

I strongly disagree.

The Catholic Church is strongly opposed to Sola Scriptura. As typically are Catholics. The Catholic Church offers an alternative to the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura). It is popularly expressed as “the three legged stool.” This is:

1. Tradition as chosen, defined and interpreted by The Catholic Church alone.
2. Scripture not in any book or in the words on any page but “in the heart” of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church alone.
3. The Magisterium of The Catholic Church alone as chosen by The Catholic Church alone - and its rulings, decisions, interpretation and arbitrations.
   These 3 equally and inseparably - as 3 sources of ONE stream, all equally true and inerrant and divine.

But this thread is not about Sola Ecclesia Roma, it’s about Sola Scriptura.

1. IMHO, a worthless comment. “There are 6 billion furry brown creatures on the Moon of Endor” doesn’t CONTRADICT Scripture either - but that HARDLY suggests that it’s a dogmatic fact of highest importance and certainty. “Mary had pink hair, 221 children and loved fish tacos” doesn’t CONTRADICT Scripture but are those things thus, ergo, all dogmatic facts? I hope you see my point. IMHO, your comment (often made by Catholics) is meaningless. Now, I PERSONALLY would agree (even as now a Protestant) that no official teaching of The Catholic Church exactly CONTRADICTS Scripture. But that has almost no relevance as to whether all its teachings are thus True.
2. Actually, The Catholic Church claims much more than you do, it claims that all her doctrines are conformed to Scripture. But it’s critical to ask, “WHAT Scripture?” Are we talking about words found somewhere between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21? No, The Catholic Church is talking about the Scripture IN ITS OWN HEART (CCC 113) as interpreted by ITS OWN SELF (CCC 85) so as to agree with the Tradition of its own self. And, of course, the interpretation of itself of the Scriptures in the heart of itself would be WRONG if not in agreement with the Magisterium of its own self which is pleadged to uphold the teachings of its own self, and if not in conformity with the Tradition of its own self as interpreted by its own self. Conversely, the ONLY correct “interpretation” would be the one that agrees with the interpration of The Catholic Church of the Scripture in the heart of itself as interpreted by itself and the Tradition of itself as chosen and interpreted by itself and the view of the Magisterium of itself. It pretty much insures self will always agree with self. It’s not surprising.

.

can you show me where the Church says that the Bible is not part of the Authority of the Church? I don’t mean by extrapolation, I mean where it says that the Bible does not matter?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

So here we get into the original subject of this thread, what exactly is “Sola Scriptura”. I agree that with some definitions of Sola Scriptura the issue of the Canon of Scripture is an inconvenient question.

No, just moot. Just as The Rule of Law in civilized societies does not define what every law is in every jurisdiction - it simply embraces the law as the norma normans, so it is with the Rule of Scripture. Sola Scriptura was just as applicable in 1400 BC when the only Scripture was The Ten Commandments as it was in 350 AD when we had the current corpus. The only thing that “changed” is the size of the corpus, the size of the canon/rule/norma normans.

I regard the issue as a diversion. Look, my HINDU friend in INDIA knows what the Christian Scriptures are. Now, yes, Catholics LOVE to get into their own unique “set” of DEUTERO books - and yes, I agree, theoretically, there’s not a consensus on those books. We have ONE denomination with ONE set, another ONE with another, another ONE with another… annd about 49,997 that just don’t go there. But, friend, it’s moot. It’s just moot. With the possible exception of one verse in one of those books with the CC says “proves” Purgatory and the EO and OO (both accepting the same book) argues definitatively DOES NOT (so even those that accept the book don’t agree) - with that one highly debated verse excepting - it just makes no difference. Truth is: the consensus over Scripture is one of the oldest and perhaps is the most embraced point of consensus in Christianity. Trying to make a BIG DEAL out of it is seen by me as nothing of a diversion technique. When I speak with Catholics, I EXPECT them to use their unique additional books. They don’t, but I welcome them to. And if they did - yup, the COULD be using Sola Scriptura but they don’t, they oppose it. So again, it jsut seems moot.

Maybe (probably) I have not made myself clear. I actually am trying to separate doctrine from practice. I think it is possible for one to hold something as a practice but not a doctrine…and as an example I thought of Christians who hold to the practice of not drinking alcohol (for whatever reason) but do not hold to the doctrine that no Christians should drink alcohol (as some do).

A teaching is what you hold as factually correct. Jesus is divine.
A practice is what you do (PERHAPS applying the above). I worship Jesus.

The doctrine here is that Scripture is realiable.
A praxis here is embracing such as the rule/canon/norma normans

Under some definitions of Sola Scripture that I have read, they claim the Bible as self-interpreting.

Perhaps…

I disagree. Scripture CANNOT interpret anything. Nor does this have ANYTHING to do with Sola Scriptura which is a praxis, not a teaching. And which has to do with what is to serve as the rule/canon, not with hermeneutics.

What is often MEANT by this AWEFUL (and IMHO misleading term) is that Scripture often clarifies itself. This HERMENEUTICAL principle (note: NOT a norming principle) is embraced by lot of Protestants (who may or may not embrace Sola Scriptura) called “systemmatics.” Let’s say we have a verse that speaks of Baptism. In systemmatics, we’ll look to all the other Scriptures on this topic - and bring them together. We’d read them ALL, as a corpus, and the thought is that reading them together will bring a richer understanding to the verse in question and the topic in question. It’s not unlike trying to understand a comment made by Mark Twain in Huck Finn. We might look to all the other places in Mark Twain’s books where this expression is found - and see if TOGETHER - these references help us to understand what the author is conveying to us.

The term for this HERMENEUTICAL principle, “Scripture interprets Scripture” is IMHO misleading. Sadly, it’s one Lutherans use a lot, too. It’s just poorly worded, IMHO. But MY point would be: it has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura. It’s a HERMENEUTICAL principle. Christians may try to bolster the reasons for embracing Scripture as the canon by noting this (or the clarity of scripture or any other point) but WHY Scripture is embraced is not the issue THAT it is embraced. Follow?

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

can you show me where the Church says that the Bible is not part of the Authority of the [Catholic] Church? I don’t mean by extrapolation, I mean where it says that the Bible does not matter?

I never said The Catholic Church says it doesn’t matter…

What I said is that the “Scripture” to which is claims to be “subject” is the Scripture in its own heart (read Catholic Catechism # 113), as interpreted by its own self (read Catholic Catechism # 85 and 100).

And even that is not the SOLE rule, even that is only PART of it. Read your Catechism # 95.

Back to the issue of this thread…

.

 

[pneuma07]

When I start from the Bible and the Scripture that I see that Catholics have brought to the table is 2 Thess 2:15.

Now I have observed that the scope of this tradition in this passage of Scripture is tradition that has the apostles as its source. I assume that there is such an entity as junk tradition that I should not regard.

Then it begs the important question to me “How do I know that an element of tradition that somebody claims is from the apostles actually is”. You see I do not want to be led astray by junk tradition.

Now you will claim of course that your church has the authority to separate the good from the bad. Now this is true if and only if your church is exclusively “The Church of Jesus Christ”, “The Bride of Christ” and everybody else excluded from that and presumably relegated to an inferior status. For many reasons which are outside of the scope of this thread, I am “not there yet”. So that having been said, the only method at my disposal to separate the good from the junk is…the Bible…

but…

then again we have the issue of what prevents me from deciding my own canon will omit Hebrews. And this piece of tradition at least is not apostolic. But I have no interest in deciding my own personal canon anyway, so I think I am on safe grounds accepting it.
There was a remarkable inluence on the works leading to the formulation of the Dei Verbum of the great contribution on these issues by Yves Cardinal Congar, whom you mention.

With all due respect, it is getting late here on the east coast and I am quickly losing my ability to think clearly and fairly.

Dear AP,

I guess you do not mean that the NT is the Source of the Gospel.
I guess we agree Jesus is the Source, and that He committed His Gospel to the Apostles. The NT reflects the following Apostolic Teaching, but is not the Source of it.

You and I have a NT IMHO because the ancient Church decided that there be a NT.
( even if 2 Peter tells us that there exist Pauline letters to be considered Scriptures, you have to decide ….whether 2 Peter is Scripture, which took quite a lot ot time ).
For sure, to decide this, she did NOT ask the NT

Was that decision good or junk AP ?

I cannot assume that all what is left for us by the Incarnated Logos to approach His Revelation is a compilation of books, with everybody counting on personal ability to extraxt from it Christianity. Do we get His Revelation like this ?

What would you say about how John H. Newman puts it “A revelation is not given if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given.” ?

In Christ
P7

 

[pneuma07]

I strongly disagree.

The Catholic Church is strongly opposed to Sola Scriptura. As typically are Catholics. The Catholic Church offers an alternative to the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura). It is popularly expressed as “the three legged stool.” This is:

1. Tradition as chosen, defined and interpreted by The Catholic Church alone.
2. Scripture not in any book or in the words on any page but “in the heart” of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church alone.
3. The Magisterium of The Catholic Church alone as chosen by The Catholic Church alone - and its rulings, decisions, interpretation and arbitrations.
   These 3 equally and inseparably - as 3 sources of ONE stream, all equally true and inerrant and divine.

But this thread is not about Sola Ecclesia Roma, it’s about Sola Scriptura.

1. IMHO, a worthless comment. “There are 6 billion furry brown creatures on the Moon of Endor” doesn’t CONTRADICT Scripture either - but that HARDLY suggests that it’s a dogmatic fact of highest importance and certainty. “Mary had pink hair, 221 children and loved fish tacos” doesn’t CONTRADICT Scripture but are those things thus, ergo, all dogmatic facts? I hope you see my point. IMHO, your comment (often made by Catholics) is meaningless. Now, I PERSONALLY would agree (even as now a Protestant) that no official teaching of The Catholic Church exactly CONTRADICTS Scripture. But that has almost no relevance as to whether all its teachings are thus True.
2. Actually, The Catholic Church claims much more than you do, it claims that all her doctrines are conformed to Scripture. But it’s critical to ask, “WHAT Scripture?” Are we talking about words found somewhere between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21? No, The Catholic Church is talking about the Scripture IN ITS OWN HEART (CCC 113) as interpreted by ITS OWN SELF (CCC 85) so as to agree with the Tradition of its own self. And, of course, the interpretation of itself of the Scriptures in the heart of itself would be WRONG if not in agreement with the Magisterium of its own self which is pleadged to uphold the teachings of its own self, and if not in conformity with the Tradition of its own self as interpreted by its own self. Conversely, the ONLY correct “interpretation” would be the one that agrees with the interpration of The Catholic Church of the Scripture in the heart of itself as interpreted by itself and the Tradition of itself as chosen and interpreted by itself and the view of the Magisterium of itself. It pretty much insures self will always agree with self. It’s not surprising.

.

Dear Josiah,

Protestantims were born IMHO from the implicit assumption that
if I happen to see a conflict between Magisterium and Scripture, then this conflict does exist, and therefore the Church is wrong.

Then new denominations were born from othe guys seeing conflicts between the magisterium of their faith community and Scripture…

A real difference, at least in principle, is IMHO here, that in Catholicism Magisterium is the measuring stick of my ( as well as other ) interpretations,( and here I guess you and I agree) whereas in Protestantisms my interpretation is the measuring stick of the interpretations of Magisterium as well as any other interpretations , (and here I guess you disagree)

It is quite manifest Josiah that the Church proposes her interpretation of Scriptures.
What did Martin Luther, and so many after him and against him propose ?
( In your present language we’d probably would put it that he made his self magisterium to himself, interpreting Scriptures by hymself, and selecting and interpreting the witnesses of tradition by himself )

Then we have to decide who can possibly be the best, or most reliable interpreter …

In Christ
P7

 

[ralphinal]

I never said The Catholic Church says it doesn’t matter…

What I said is that the “Scripture” to which is claims to be “subject” is the Scripture in its own heart (read Catholic Catechism # 113), as interpreted by its own self (read Catholic Catechism # 85 and 100).

And even that is not the SOLE rule, even that is only PART of it. Read your Catechism # 95.

Back to the issue of this thread…

.

This IS the issue of the thread

Here is the passage in question, including the preceeding one

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

Passage 84-86

84 The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."46

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

Note paragraph 86. You must have missed it where is says that the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God but its servant

Paragraph 96-100 are summeries of the previous passages, but I want to post 95-100

95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."62

IN BRIEF

96 What Christ entrusted to the apostles, they in turn handed on by their preaching and writing, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to all generations, until Christ returns in glory.

97 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.

98 “The Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes” (DV 8 § 1).

99 Thanks to its supernatural sense of faith, the People of God as a whole never ceases to welcome, to penetrate more deeply and to live more fully from the gift of divine Revelation.

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

100 says what it does because 95 says what it does. 95 says what it does because the Bible and Tradition teaches that it should. Otherwise, you gain all sorts of Heresies.

I am a little shocked that you were so willing to cut and paste in such a way as to make the Catholic CHurch look like they put less emphasis on Scripture

 

[AmateurPianist]

I guess you do not mean that the NT is the Source of the Gospel.
I guess we agree Jesus is the Source, and that He committed His Gospel to the Apostles. The NT reflects the following Apostolic Teaching, but is not the Source of it.

Sounds good at first glance.

You and I have a NT IMHO because the ancient Church decided that there be a NT.
( even if 2 Peter tells us that there exist Pauline letters to be considered Scriptures, you have to decide ….whether 2 Peter is Scripture, which took quite a lot ot time ).
For sure, to decide this, she did NOT ask the NT

I think it is important to say that the whole process starts with God. God is the one that first decided there will be a NT and inspired the early church in this regard.

At some point men had to sit down and decide what exactly will be in the NT. Now maybe this was so easy that even a caveman could do it (they were just ratifying what was already known) or maybe there was some disagreement and discussion.

The point remains that men were involved in this process to some extent.

But the other point is that God knew beforehand what should be in the NT and made sure that what he wanted was done.

The concept of God involving men to do join Him in doing His work should not be difficult for folks to grasp. I don’t get the debate here.

Was that decision good or junk AP ?

Of course this is good.

I cannot assume that all what is left for us by the Incarnated Logos to approach His Revelation is a compilation of books, with everybody counting on personal ability to extraxt from it Christianity. Do we get His Revelation like this ?

What would you say about how John H. Newman puts it “A revelation is not given if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given.” ?
P7

Well now we get to the separate issue of how do we as believers in Jesus Christ obey 1 Thess. 5:21 (my sig).

Scripture is very clear in this verse that it is my responsibility to embrace truth and reject falsehood. If I fail in this area, God will not give me a pass if I pass my responsibility on to others.

 

[crazzeto]

Sounds good at first glance.

I think it is important to say that the whole process starts with God. God is the one that first decided there will be a NT and inspired the early church in this regard.

At some point men had to sit down and decide what exactly will be in the NT. Now maybe this was so easy that even a caveman could do it

Somewhere, a caveman is getting is protests signs ready… they’ll be at your house soon. (sorry, just had to throw in a geico joke)

(they were just ratifying what was already known) or maybe there was some disagreement and discussion.

The point remains that men were involved in this process to some extent.

Yes, this is accurate. And to be even more accurate, it’s important to remember this:

The only inspired me whom we know for a fact wrote completely free of error were the inspried authors them selves. No one else in that chain was so inspired. There have been numerous bibles printed with numerous errors. One of the most amusing was the trousers bible, so named because

And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons.

read

And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves -]aprons/-] trousers.

Or the murders bible which took Mark 7

27 Who said to her: Suffer first the children to be filled: for it is not good to take the bread of the children, and cast it to the dogs.

and rendered it

27 Who said to her: Suffer first the children to be KILLED: for it is not good to take the bread of the children, and cast it to the dogs.

This is what I meant earlier by “dead book”. It’s unable to defend it’s self from such error being introduced into it. More examples of bad bibles are Wycliffs bible, which was used as a wepond against the church. Among the things done, he included various notes which were meant to turn the reader against the priests, monks and bishops.

Another is Tyndale’s bible, which was not only riddled by error, but also included notes so inflamitary that the civil authroities (even the protestant King Henery VIII) had to react against this bible. It was upsetting civil order!

Yet another version is Luthers bible, which excluded James, Apocalypse and Hebrews from the main cannon (they were, in the end printed in the back of the bible w/o page number, or reference in the TOC or anyother such luxury), as well as changing verses in the bible to support sola fide.

You see the very real problem with Sola Scriptura? How it can be used as a tool to manipulate? A wepond against beleivers?

But the other point is that God knew beforehand what should be in the NT and made sure that what he wanted was done.

The concept of God involving men to do join Him in doing His work should not be difficult for folks to grasp. I don’t get the debate here.

Of course this is good.

Well now we get to the separate issue of how do we as believers in Jesus Christ obey 1 Thess. 5:21 (my sig).

Scripture is very clear in this verse that it is my responsibility to embrace truth and reject falsehood. If I fail in this area, God will not give me a pass if I pass my responsibility on to others.

 

[AmateurPianist]

This is what I meant earlier by “dead book”. It’s unable to defend it’s self from such error being introduced into it. More examples of bad bibles are Wycliffs bible, which was used as a wepond against the church. Among the things done, he included various notes which were meant to turn the reader against the priests, monks and bishops.

Another is Tyndale’s bible, which was not only riddled by error, but also included notes so inflamitary that the civil authroities (even the protestant King Henery VIII) had to react against this bible. It was upsetting civil order!

Yet another version is Luthers bible, which excluded James, Apocalypse and Hebrews from the main cannon (they were, in the end printed in the back of the bible w/o page number, or reference in the TOC or anyother such luxury), as well as changing verses in the bible to support sola fide.

You see the very real problem with Sola Scriptura? How it can be used as a tool to manipulate? A wepond against beleivers?

One point. Many Bibles have notes. The notes are not inspired.

And one comment. I actually like Wycliffe and Tyndale.

You see, I will always be sympathetic towards those who are killed for their faith as opposed to those who are doing the “killing Christians for Jesus”. And that includes.

• Tyndale, John Hus and others by Catholics
• Anabaptists by both Catholics and Protestants
• Michael Servetus by John Calvin
• English and Irish martyrs by Protestants (and I think by Catholics but I dunno)

That leads do an odd set of bedfellows I know, but that is the way it is.

As you can see, I have a VERY hard time with “killing Christians for Christ”.

But that is off topic.

 

[Anna_Scott]

It is probably safe to say that all Churches, rejecting Catholicism, claim interpretive authority in Sola Scriptura–with varying combinations of collective and individual authority–and with varying views on the role of tradition.

Unfortunately, many (not all) who reject Catholicism, also, “claim” to reject the role of tradition in the interpretation of Scripture. As I have said many times, I think many Protestants simply traded the tradition of the ECF for the tradition of the Protestant Reformers–and the traditions established through the subsequent splintering.

In the discussions with Catholic forum members, it does come down to authority of the Catholic Church vs. authority of non-Catholics to interpret Scripture in any way that opposes the “Tradition and Living Magisterium.”

I do believe the Word of God is living and active. So, I do not agree that the Bible is a “dead Book.” I think most Christians are familiar with Hebrews 4:12 (ESV): 12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

I do believe the Holy Spirit can speak to and work through the individual—as a member of the body of Christ. I have had personal experiences with praying according to the Words of Scripture through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The results have been, at times, really quite miraculous.

I do not wish to confuse the call of the Holy Spirit with the “emotion,” which many Protestant ministers use to their own advantage, in engaging and controlling a congregation. I think many Protestants (myself included) have, at one time or another, acted upon human emotion, mistaking it for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is actually a dangerous area, and one I have given a great deal of thought.

The Catholic Church is aware of this issue and makes a good point:

Catholic Encyclopedia Tab on CAF Toolbar
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Scripture
Scripture
A. Question of Right
(3) The same must be said of the psychological criterium, or the effect which the perusal of Scripture produces in the heart of the reader. Such emotions are subjective, and vary in different readers. The Epistle of St. James appeared straw like to Luther, divine to Calvin. (4) These internal criteria are inadequate even if they be taken collectively. Wrong keys are unable to open a lock whether they be used singly or collectively.

The problem we (Protestants) face, is the many different interpretations of Scripture. I join Catholics in asking how so many different and opposing Protestant doctrines, were born through Sola Scriptura.

If Dr. Phil asked Protestants, regarding Sola Scriptura, "And how’s that working for you? I would have to say Sola Scriptura is not working very well.

One of the many reasons, I left the Baptist Church, was because I found many of their doctrines to be false, even when measured by Scripture alone–very ironic, since Baptists claim Sola Scriptura.

So, now what do I do? I am a Protestant without a church. There are so many different religions within Protestantism; I could spend the rest of my life sorting through all the different beliefs, in searching for a Church that holds the truth—And I might still get it wrong. That is why I carefully consider the words of Catholics on the forums. Maybe they were right to start with.

Bottom line: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not helping me. It has actually created the sea of Protestant voices, in which I could easily drown.

Working out my salvation in fear and trembling,
Anna

 

[schaick]

Anna Yes. My statement:

The Gospel is all we need. The rest of the New Testament is more of a history of the church and it’s develpoement.

Is my answer to “not going beyond what is written.”!!

The rest of the New Testament is as I said a history of the early church. The Epistles shows how different congregations were having difficulties with one thing or another. Circumsize or not, cover head or not, the people back then were needing encouragement or having troubles staying true to the Gospel.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna Yes. My statement:

The Gospel is all we need. The rest of the New Testament is more of a history of the church and it’s develpoement.

Is my answer to “not going beyond what is written.”!!

The rest of the New Testament is as I said a history of the early church. The Epistles shows how different congregations were having difficulties with one thing or another. Circumsize or not, cover head or not, the people back then were needing encouragement or having troubles staying true to the Gospel.

You still aren’t answering my posts to you. If you are serious about a discussion, then please show some respect to those of us who put time into our posts to you.

Schaick, please click on the arrow by my name and respond to this post.

Anna

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Dear Josiah,

A real difference, at least in principle, is IMHO here, that in Catholicism Magisterium is the measuring stick of my ( as well as other ) interpretations,( and here I guess you and I agree) whereas in Protestantisms my interpretation is the measuring stick of the interpretations of Magisterium as well as any other interpretations , (and here I guess you disagree)

IMHO, you have it exactly reversed.

1. The Catholic Church permits only ONE to authentically interpret Scripture: Itself. Exclusively. CCC # 85. The Catholic Church requires itself to interpret such in conformity with the Tradition of itself and the Magisterium of itself.
2. No, in the practice of Sola Scriptura, the “measuring stick” is Scripture - not the interpretation of self alone.

The CC designates itself the sole interpreter and uses its own views (Tradition) and its own self (Magisterium) as the norma normans - NOT of Scripture on any page in words all can objectively read, but the Scripture in the “heart” of its own self (CCC 113).

Then we have to decide who can possibly be the best, or most reliable interpreter …

Of course, anyone can certainly just designate self alone to be such - and declare such to be “infallible” so that one is exempt from accountability: self. While this insures “one voice” it is entirely moot in terms of correctness. One has simple removed the question of correctness from consideration by exempting one: self.

Here is the fundamental “problem” that Catholicism has with Sola Scriptura. It assumes accountability - and this The Catholic Church rejects (for self alone). Since The Catholic Church alone designates The Catholic Church alone as correct (sic! Therein lies the perfect circle of self -authentication: self simply looks in the mirror at self to see if self looks like self), it thereby simply designates self as the rule for self: the Tradition of self as self designates, chooses, defines and interprets, and the Magisterium of self alone as self alone determines, rules, interprets and arbitrates. And all this is NOT regarded any objective, written, inscripturated words of God but rather the Scripture “in the heart of… (you guessed it)… self.” (CCC 113). Now, accept with docility (as The Catholic Church requires of all - CCC 87) that self alone may designate self alone as infallible/unaccountable - and all this “follows.” But note that it is simply an EVASION of the whole issue of accountability and correctness. You are simply required by The Catholic Church alone to accept with docility that The Catholic Church alone is correct cuz it claims it is and therefore, it is. Now, IF you see something similar in some other Christians (and I think you can find that), then I’d suggest the “trouble” you have with such self-claiming, self-authenticating, this perfect circle, this evasion of accountability, all that be applied much closer to home because IMHO none does this more completely, more totally than The Catholic Church.

Sola Scriptura suggests accountability of ALL. It suggests the rule be OUTSIDE and ABOVE all. THAT is why, IMHO, The Catholic Church opposes it.

But back to the issue at hand: Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“measuring stick”) or norma normans as it is called in epistemology as positions are evaluated. Yes, it assumes that ALL of us are accountable and that the best canon is not simply self designating self but rather a common one outside, above and beyond ALL parties. Since all parties accept Scripture as the inerrant, divinely-inspiried, inscriputrated words of God and such is both knowable to all literate and unalterable, it is deemed the best rule for this purpose.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[pneuma07]

The NT reflects the following Apostolic Teaching, but is not the Source of it.

Sounds good at first glance.

.

Dear AP,

This looks like an important point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma07 You and I have a NT IMHO because the ancient Church decided that there be a NT. ( even if 2 Peter tells us that there exist Pauline letters to be considered Scriptures, you have to decide ….whether 2 Peter is Scripture, which took quite a lot ot time ). For sure, to decide this, she did NOT ask the NT
I think it is important to say that the whole process starts with God. God is the one that first decided there will be a NT and inspired the early church in this regard.

---

The concept of God involving men to do join Him in doing His work should not be difficult for folks to grasp. I don’t get the debate here.

Neither do I.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma07 Was that decision good or junk AP ?

Of course this is good.

Then it was a good decision based on Apostolic Tradition . I guess the Council of
Jerusalem we see in Acts 15 did not decide the Sola Scriptura way, but based on what
Had been received from the Lord Himself. It seems to me that the Church
Has always decided based on all what she knows, which is collectively transmitted in a living Tradition.
What else can or must she do ?

You see, personally I cannot postulate that the Apostolic Church gravely corrupted the original deposit of the faith she had to guard, AND that, if so, I am in a position to rebuild the deposit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma07 I cannot assume that all what is left for us by the Incarnated Logos to approach His Revelation is a compilation of books, with everybody counting on personal ability to extraxt from it Christianity. Do we get His Revelation like this ? What would you say about how John H. Newman puts it “A revelation is not given if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given.” ?P7

Well now we get to the separate issue of how do we as believers in Jesus Christ obey 1 Thess. 5:21 (my sig).

Scripture is very clear in this verse that it is my responsibility to embrace truth and reject falsehood. If I fail in this area, God will not give me a pass if I pass my responsibility on to others.

I guess the thessalonian believers were invited to follow the apostolic teaching they had received from Paul, by which he had founded the community to which he was sending his first letter.

We can IMHO respect our responsibility to embrace truth by deciding , by individual judgment, whether there exist, and she’s identifiable, His Church today, and if this is for us the case, by learning Jesus’ message ever more deeply within His Church.

This way I do not pass my responsibility, I exercise it.

P7

 

[pneuma07]

IMHO, you have it exactly reversed.

1. The Catholic Church permits only ONE to authentically interpret Scripture: Itself. Exclusively. CCC # 85. The Catholic Church requires itself to interpret such in conformity with the Tradition of itself and the Magisterium of itself.
2. No, in the practice of Sola Scriptura, the “measuring stick” is Scripture - not the interpretation of self alone.

The CC designates itself the sole interpreter and uses its own views (Tradition) and its own self (Magisterium) as the norma normans - NOT of Scripture on any page in words all can objectively read, but the Scripture in the “heart” of its own self (CCC 113).

Of course, anyone can certainly just designate self alone to be such - and declare such to be “infallible” so that one is exempt from accountability: self. While this insures “one voice” it is entirely moot in terms of correctness. One has simple removed the question of correctness from consideration by exempting one: self.

Here is the fundamental “problem” that Catholicism has with Sola Scriptura. It assumes accountability - and this The Catholic Church rejects (for self alone). Since The Catholic Church alone designates The Catholic Church alone as correct (sic! Therein lies the perfect circle of self -authentication: self simply looks in the mirror at self to see if self looks like self), it thereby simply designates self as the rule for self: the Tradition of self as self designates, chooses, defines and interprets, and the Magisterium of self alone as self alone determines, rules, interprets and arbitrates. And all this is NOT regarded any objective, written, inscripturated words of God but rather the Scripture “in the heart of… (you guessed it)… self.” (CCC 113). Now, accept with docility (as The Catholic Church requires of all - CCC 87) that self alone may designate self alone as infallible/unaccountable - and all this “follows.” But note that it is simply an EVASION of the whole issue of accountability and correctness. You are simply required by The Catholic Church alone to accept with docility that The Catholic Church alone is correct cuz it claims it is and therefore, it is. Now, IF you see something similar in some other Christians (and I think you can find that), then I’d suggest the “trouble” you have with such self-claiming, self-authenticating, this perfect circle, this evasion of accountability, all that be applied much closer to home because IMHO none does this more completely, more totally than The Catholic Church.

Sola Scriptura suggests accountability of ALL. It suggests the rule be OUTSIDE and ABOVE all. THAT is why, IMHO, The Catholic Church opposes it.

But back to the issue at hand: Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“measuring stick”) or norma normans as it is called in epistemology as positions are evaluated. Yes, it assumes that ALL of us are accountable and that the best canon is not simply self designating self but rather a common one outside, above and beyond ALL parties. Since all parties accept Scripture as the inerrant, divinely-inspiried, inscriputrated words of God and such is both knowable to all literate and unalterable, it is deemed the best rule for this purpose.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Dear Josiah,

When you have the Catholic Church, or anyone for that matter, judged by the Bible, the real situation IMHO is not that I listen impartially to a third party judging between myself and her. The situation is rather that I, not the Bible, am judging the Church , because what I use to establish whether the Church is wrong on a point is MY interpretation.
This is indeed my measuring stick in this case. I cannot see how we could bypass this Josiah.

And Scripture cannot be the final measuring stick between your interpretation of Scripture ( which is de facto the measuring stick you use about other existing interpretations) and the interpretation of the Church, or of a poster here.
By assuming the fiction of an objective ruling party I make implicitly and substantially myself what I charge the Catholic Church to falsely pretend she is: the guardian
of Revelation.

We could examine elsewhere whether it is plausible that the Catholic Church IS the guardian and servant of Revelation. Of course we should see whether the authority of the Church is based on a mere circularity, as many non catholic brothers propose. You eventually go there, as you know, in dialogs between protestants and catholic.

But what we can do now, within the very scope of the thread, is understanding that it is me who label the Church wrong on this or that, through my interpretation of Scriptures, (and, for many, the idea that the Church has or had to learn everything from Scriptures).
Which IMHO makes the idea that I am appealing to what is above the two parties fallacious.

In an admittedly imperfect illustration, let’s imagine you and MrW both accept the US Constitution. You and he happen to have a dispute about how applying an article. You say MrW is wrong.
At this point let’s say you and he accept not just the Constitution, but Sola Constitutione. At the end of the day, how do you know who is interpreting better ?
Can the Constitution settle your divergence by itself, above and beyond the parties, if it is precisely the issue on what the parties disagree ?

In Christ
P7

 

[luggage_straps]

You see I dunno whether I believe in it or not.

So I thought I would step back and ask exactly what it is.

I am curious if there is one definition of this everybody can agree to. Then I can tell you whether I believe in Sola Scriptura or not.

If not, I wonder if there are some definitions anyway that I can agree to.

So fire away and tell me what you think it is.

What is this sola scripture? Never heard about. Please post some information about this.

Thanks

 

[ralphinal]

Here is the passage in question, including the preceeding one

Quote:
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

Passage 84-86

Quote:
84 The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."46

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

Note paragraph 86. You must have missed it where is says that the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God but its servant

Paragraph 96-100 are summeries of the previous passages, but I want to post 95-100

Quote:
95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."62

IN BRIEF

96 What Christ entrusted to the apostles, they in turn handed on by their preaching and writing, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to all generations, until Christ returns in glory.

97 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.

98 “The Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes” (DV 8 § 1).

99 Thanks to its supernatural sense of faith, the People of God as a whole never ceases to welcome, to penetrate more deeply and to live more fully from the gift of divine Revelation.

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

100 says what it does because 95 says what it does. 95 says what it does because the Bible and Tradition teaches that it should. Otherwise, you gain all sorts of Heresies.

I am a little shocked that you were so willing to cut and paste in such a way as to make the Catholic CHurch look like they put less emphasis on Scripture

 

[Anna_Scott]

IMHO, you have it exactly reversed.

1. The Catholic Church permits only ONE to authentically interpret Scripture: Itself. Exclusively. CCC # 85. The Catholic Church requires itself to interpret such in conformity with the Tradition of itself and the Magisterium of itself.
2. No, in the practice of Sola Scriptura, the “measuring stick” is Scripture - not the interpretation of self alone.

The CC designates itself the sole interpreter and uses its own views (Tradition) and its own self (Magisterium) as the norma normans - NOT of Scripture on any page in words all can objectively read, but the Scripture in the “heart” of its own self (CCC 113).

Of course, anyone can certainly just designate self alone to be such - and declare such to be “infallible” so that one is exempt from accountability: self. While this insures “one voice” it is entirely moot in terms of correctness. One has simple removed the question of correctness from consideration by exempting one: self.

Here is the fundamental “problem” that Catholicism has with Sola Scriptura. It assumes accountability - and this The Catholic Church rejects (for self alone). Since The Catholic Church alone designates The Catholic Church alone as correct (sic! Therein lies the perfect circle of self -authentication: self simply looks in the mirror at self to see if self looks like self), it thereby simply designates self as the rule for self: the Tradition of self as self designates, chooses, defines and interprets, and the Magisterium of self alone as self alone determines, rules, interprets and arbitrates. And all this is NOT regarded any objective, written, inscripturated words of God but rather the Scripture “in the heart of… (you guessed it)… self.” (CCC 113). Now, accept with docility (as The Catholic Church requires of all - CCC 87) that self alone may designate self alone as infallible/unaccountable - and all this “follows.” But note that it is simply an EVASION of the whole issue of accountability and correctness. You are simply required by The Catholic Church alone to accept with docility that The Catholic Church alone is correct cuz it claims it is and therefore, it is. Now, IF you see something similar in some other Christians (and I think you can find that), then I’d suggest the “trouble” you have with such self-claiming, self-authenticating, this perfect circle, this evasion of accountability, all that be applied much closer to home because IMHO none does this more completely, more totally than The Catholic Church.

Sola Scriptura suggests accountability of ALL. It suggests the rule be OUTSIDE and ABOVE all. THAT is why, IMHO, The Catholic Church opposes it.

But back to the issue at hand: Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“measuring stick”) or norma normans as it is called in epistemology as positions are evaluated. Yes, it assumes that ALL of us are accountable and that the best canon is not simply self designating self but rather a common one outside, above and beyond ALL parties. Since all parties accept Scripture as the inerrant, divinely-inspiried, inscriputrated words of God and such is both knowable to all literate and unalterable, it is deemed the best rule for this purpose.

I hope that helps.
Pax

• Josiah.

Who gives you the authority to make these claims? You keep repeating the same mantra, with absolutely nothing to back up your claims.

It is the “Rules of Sola Scriptura According to AmericanJosiah.” No one elected you to speak for the Protestant Sector. You certainly do not have the right to speak for me.

What is the source of your authority?

Anna

 

[JonNC]

Who gives you the authority to make these claims? You keep repeating the same mantra, with absolutely nothing to back up your claims.

It is the “Rules of Sola Scriptura According to AmericanJosiah.” No one elected you to speak for the Protestant Sector. You certainly do not have the right to speak for me.

What is the source of your authority?

Anna

To be honest, Anna, Josiah in post #77 stated his sources - the Book of Concord, and then the LCMS website. Later you responded to it in post #91 as follows:

Very interesting quotes.

Would a Catholic forum member comment on some or all of these quotes specifically?

Anna

One may or may not agree with those sources as accurate, but he did reference them.

Jon