Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[joe371]

Per Crucem;11722350]The short answer would be that God is the highest authority for the Church. Therefore, His word (which carries His authority) is the highest authority for the Church.

Thread-related questions: I know you are aware of this; I just wanted to put it out there: In the early church, when it came to resolving doctrinal differences, they deferred to sacred tradition and sacred scripture. Scripture alone was never the benchmark via individual interpretation. Based on tradition and scripture, it was the Catholic Church leaders (not the individual Christians) that settled the matter for the entire church i.e. God guided these fallible people via Ecumenical Council, to make an infallible decision about things like the Trinity and Theotokos, both of which were being denied at the time. The highest authority would be the people who ultimately resolve the doctrinal differences, and the Holy Bible cannot do that on its own. Only people can do that…Should Jesus’ church today, continue to function in the same way it did at these various ecumenical councils long ago?

Where in the bible does His word (by the way, I agree; it carries His authority) say that His word is the highest authority for the Church? If you are right then who is responsible for administering His word, just as those fallible folks did at Nicaea and Ephesus? Finally, are there any fallible church leaders (so many autonomous churches today to choose from) who can teach infallibly via God’s infallible guidance, just as the first church leaders did (apostles and their successors such as Titus, and the various Ecumenical councils after the apostolic age - or did God stop infallibly guiding His church? .

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Return to the topic of the OP and stay there please

 

[joe371]

Hey Per Crucem, just a few more questions I struggled with as a former sola scriptura advocate. These question pertain to the following: “Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?”

Tradition has its place, of course. However, where that tradition contradicts the written word or is not present in that written word, it cannot be made dogma.

Who today, is charged, by Jesus, with the earthly job of deciding when tradition contradicts the written word, just as the Catholic Church did and the council of Nicaea and Ephesus?

Do you believe that the following words (spoken to Peter and the apostles, respectively) apply to Peter’s successor (Matthew 16) and the successors of the apostles (Matthew 18)? Or, do they apply to every Christian?

Petrine office

“…and I tell you that you are Peter,** and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”

Ecumenical Council

“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven."

I understand, of course, that Sacred Tradition in Catholic theology is God’s word. Any tradition would have to be verified as being that word or as having come from Christ or His apostles. There are some traditions that I do believe come from the apostles that are not present explicitly in Scripture (such as Mary’s ever-virginity), so I accept them. But I do not accept them as de fide revealed dogma.

What would you say to someone like my sister (sola scriptura advocate) who believes you and I are wrong about Mary’s ever-virginity? Caveat: she would remind you, before-hand, of your own words, insisting that Jesus word is the highest authority for the Church, therefore her interpretation would be right because she is moved by the Holy Spirit? Sola scriptura, to me anyway, seems like such a bankrupt system. Moreover, none of the apostles or their successors, taught it. **

 

[joe371]

Jon the Magesterium, Scripture and Tradition act
as ONE unified organism when putting forth doctrine
on faith and morals. For Ben Johnson’s sake let me
repeat DOCTRINE not penal actions for a thieving
priest or some nonsense.

Now you keep suggesting that somehow Lutheran
and RC are one holy Catholic Church. Yet when I
ask you if that is so why are you attending Lutheran
instead if RC you give me a repeat of Scripture and
Tradition as if somehow there is a difference. And this
last go round you threw in the Magesterium for
good measure?
My question to you was very simple: if all is so
one hunza God here, why are you Lutheran and
not RC? YOU?

Remember the organic whole here: the Church codified
Scripture finally in 397. Anything that could not be
supported by practical, of known, or oral tradition
was NOT included. Therefore our view of Scripture is
very clear- the Scripture must be found in Tradition and the
Tradition must be found in Scriptures and THEN
and only then can the Magesterium declare it true
and worthy of belief. Scripture and Tradition stand
independently of the Magesterium but the Magesterium
does not stand independently of Scripture and Tradition.

I think the main reason Jon stays where he is, has everything to do with the east-west schism. Jon is about as catholic (without joining the church) as it gets.

The three-legged stool of the CC is why I eventually joined the CC: Sacred Scripture + sacred Tradition +the teaching office of the Church aka the Magestarium.

 

[joe371]

You have a problem also with me calling Luther
arrogant but no problem with you coming to Catholic
forums to argue the wrongness of Catholic faith?
Really?

And if there is only ONE why do you call it Lutheran
rather than Catholic? Why not just drop the Lutheran
and go with OC, RC or EC? There must be something
different then between Lutheran and these OC, RC,
and EC?

Be good to Jon…He is about the nicest guy you will come across here at CAF…

 

[marywarfield]

Savonarola.

Nope didn’t happen. Savonarola was not excommunicated
for his objections to abuses. He was excommunicated
for spreading false faith doctrine via admitted by him
false prophecies and revelations. Not excuseable.

Try again. Please find just ONE person excommunicated
for objecting to abuses.

 

[marywarfield]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

From Exsurge Domene

papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

“17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.”

And the following excommunication:

papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10decet.htm

…

From the Lutheran standpoint the quid-pro-quo is rather straight froward - point out abuses and receive excommunication and be subject to immediate death as an outlaw. I understand that the Catholic viewpoint is different.

Please the encyclicals you posted yourself lol.
Where do they say he was excommunicated for “objecting to abuses”?

They don’t. Luther was excommunicated for: denial
of articles of the faith ( things all Catholics must adhere to),
using his priestly office to spread those errors, and yes, denying
the truth of doctrine, spreading that error as well including
Sola Scriptura, and refusal as a priest, obligated to
obey Rome, refusing to do so.

Luther was never excommunicated for objecting to
priests ripping off the poor which was also happening.
That is a to my own opinion an incredibly
tiresome Robin Hood fantasy
invented to justify the really rather awful behavior
and teachings of Martin Luther.

The reality is objecting to the extortion by priests
of the poor is the ONLY thing Luther did right.

So now you have posted links that prove my point please
post one proving the Church has ever excommunicated
someone for objecting to abuses.

This is off the subject of sola Scriptura but since
Luther is a main player I will respond to it.

For the non Catholics here or rather the Lutherans
here supporting Luther’s actions for Sola and
promoting the Robin Hood fantasy let me be clear-

it is almost impossible to get yourself excommunicated
in the Catholic Church. Really hard- you have to
work very hard to do so at actually denying principle
tenets of the faith AND teach others to do so publicly.
Abuses? What the Church does is turns a blind eye
to local abuses (obviously) such as priests demanding
prayer payments as in Luther’s day or child abuse in our
day. A blind eye until forced to see it and address
it. But it does not ex commmunicate the whistleblower.

Luther blew the whistle on extortion by priests of the
poor. He was NOT excommunicated for that.

Sola Scriptura and denial of Sacred Tradition? Yes- good
way to get yourself excommunicated if one is a priest.

If a priest today promoted what to RC amounts to
such heresy he would also be excommunicated
IF it became publicly known, and refused Papal
authority when told to shut up go pray and think about
his actions.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Hey Per Crucem, just a few more questions I struggled with as a former sola scriptura advocate. These question pertain to the following: “Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?”

Who today, is charged, by Jesus, with the earthly job of deciding when tradition contradicts the written word, just as the Catholic Church did and the council of Nicaea and Ephesus?

Do you believe that the following words (spoken to Peter and the apostles, respectively) apply to Peter’s successor (Matthew 16) and the successors of the apostles (Matthew 18)? Or, do they apply to every Christian?

Petrine office

“…and I tell you that you are Peter,** and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”

Ecumenical Council**

“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven."

To start, I would say, in reference to the Scriptures you quoted that the understanding you hold to, and which was defined at Vatican I, was the minority position in the early church. Secondly, the binding and loosing has to do with remission and retaining of sins, as Matthew 18 demonstrates (when the apostles are given this in general, and not just Peter).

What would you say to someone like my sister (sola scriptura advocate) who believes you and I are wrong about Mary’s ever-virginity? Caveat: she would remind you, before-hand, of your own words, insisting that Jesus word is the highest authority for the Church, therefore her interpretation would be right because she is moved by the Holy Spirit? Sola scriptura, to me anyway, seems like such a bankrupt system. Moreover, none of the apostles or their successors, taught it.

 

[joe371]

Per Crucem;11826937]To start, I would say, in reference to the Scriptures you quoted that the understanding you hold to, and which was defined at Vatican I, was the minority position in the early church. Secondly, the binding and loosing has to do with remission and retaining of sins, as Matthew 18 demonstrates (when the apostles are given this in general, and not just Peter).

I agree on Matthew 18. Only Peter was given the keys, as per scripture and as per history.

Regarding the early church, we must be talking about two different churches. What was the majority position of the early CC in your opinion?

You forgot to answer my question: Do you believe that the following words (spoken to Peter and the apostles, respectively) apply to Peter’s successor (Matthew 16) and the successors of the apostles (Matthew 18)? Or, do they apply to every Christian?

Petrine office, or every Christian

“…and I tell you that you are Peter,** and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”

Ecumenical Council, or every Christian

“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven."

I would tell her that, while she is free to disagree with Mary’s ever-virginity, the vast majority of Christian tradition stands opposed to her. I would not seek to bind her conscience on the subject. Therein lies the rub, and where Rome errs.

I don’t dare say the word tradition to my sister…LOL…**

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Nope didn’t happen. Savonarola was not excommunicated
for his objections to abuses. He was excommunicated
for spreading false faith doctrine via admitted by him
false prophecies and revelations. Not excuseable.

Try again. Please find just ONE person excommunicated
for objecting to abuses.

The Catholic Encyclopedia disagrees with your assessment.

Here is what it says:
In the beginning Savonarola was filled with zeal, piety, and self-sacrifice for the regeneration of religious life. He was led to offend against these virtues by his fanaticism, obstinacy, and disobedience.** He was not a heretic in matters of faith**. The erection of his statue at the foot of Luther’s monument at Worms as a reputed “forerunner of the Reformation” is entirely unwarranted.
*

Perhaps you know better than the Catholic Encyclopedia?

No, it wasn’t because of his doctrine. His crime was running afoul of a Borgia Pope. That was enough to earn him the popes matches and kindling.

 

[GraceofGod31]

Are you telling me the Apostles and their disciples
read their Gospels to their faithful? What did they say?
St. John: A reading from my Gospel called
The Gospel of St. John. It’s almost done its just my
scribe lost two of the papyri and ran out of ink?

Mary,
Looking past the mockery, no they didn’t do that. Pauline epistles were what exactly? Letters! What does one do with a letter? Read it of course.

The Apocalypse of John written in 98 and the four Gospels written no latter then 70 were written and kept in isolated library in Nicea until 398 I guess. Were early church fathers appealing to oral tradition and the scriptures? Yes, were they teaching about purgatory, indulgences, faith plus works equals salvation, the 5th Marian dogma? Nope, all much later additions to the church and all reasons one’s conscience should weigh heavily why someone should be believed if they teach as such. From my study two of the three parts (Scripture and Tradition) disagree with the magesterium on those examples. I guess the “whole organism” unlike the Trinity are not one but schizophrenic.

 

[joe371]

Nope didn’t happen. Savonarola was not excommunicated for his objections to abuses. He was excommunicated
for spreading false faith doctrine via admitted by him
false prophecies and revelations. Not excuseable.

Try again. Please find just ONE person excommunicated
for objecting to abuses.

There of course were abuses, no doubt in every century and in every church, regardless of denomination. People who levy these sort of claims as if they are deal-breakers, seem to forget that Jesus only promised to preserve truth. He even predicted that scandal was impossible to avoid. The devil hates Jesus’ Catholic Church, so we should not be surprised to see such scandals; only saddened, and remember that Satan can never destroy Jesus’ church. Truth is inviolable because we have Jesus as the Head and Savior of the Catholic Church.

Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/13490a.htm

“From 1493 Savonarola spoke with increasing violence against the abuses in ecclesiastical life, against the immorality of a large part of the clergy, above all against the immoral life of many members of the Roman Curia, even of the wearer of the tiara, Alexander VI, and against the wickedness of princes and courtiers.”

 

[marywarfield]

There of course were abuses, no doubt in every century and in every church, regardless of denomination. People who levy these sort of claims as if they are deal-breakers, seem to forget that Jesus only promised to preserve truth. He even predicted that scandal was impossible to avoid. The devil hates Jesus’ Catholic Church, so we should not be surprised to see such scandals; only saddened, and remember that Satan can never destroy Jesus’ church. Truth is inviolable because we have Jesus as the Head and Savior of the Catholic Church.

Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/13490a.htm

“From 1493 Savonarola spoke with increasing violence against the abuses in ecclesiastical life, against the immorality of a large part of the clergy, above all against the immoral life of many members of the Roman Curia, even of the wearer of the tiara, Alexander VI, and against the wickedness of princes and courtiers.”

Again no where in the Carholic Encyclopedia does it
state he was excommunicated by the Pope for his protest of abuses.
You failed to quote the article accurately.
This time I leave it to you to correct your own error
as a. Again off topic and b. another fantasy martyr
like Luther. Tiresome.
My suggestion is you quote word for word what your
own chosen article stated as to what caused the ex
communications. And for the matter of honesty
perhaps you could also explain your own chosen
article’s last paragraph summary where it cites
where he was right and where he went terribly wrong.

But again you have failed to provide an example
of the Church ex communicating someone for protesting
abuses. And you won’t be able to either because
the Church never has.

 

[marywarfield]

Mary,
Looking past the mockery, no they didn’t do that. Pauline epistles were what exactly? Letters! What does one do with a letter? Read it of course.

The Apocalypse of John written in 98 and the four Gospels written no latter then 70 were written and kept in isolated library in Nicea until 398 I guess. Were early church fathers appealing to oral tradition and the scriptures? Yes, were they teaching about purgatory, indulgences, faith plus works equals salvation, the 5th Marian dogma? Nope, all much later additions to the church and all reasons one’s conscience should weigh heavily why someone should be believed if they teach as such. From my study two of the three parts (Scripture and Tradition) disagree with the magesterium on those examples. I guess the “whole organism” unlike the Trinity are not one but schizophrenic.

The assertion I was answering was the Apostles were teaching from
Scripture. No they were not. The Apostles had no
need to “read” Christ to the people. They knew Christ
directly, intimately and did not need a written Gospel
or Epistle to preach Christ. Correct?
And in fact the Gospels WE have are the result
of those Apostles speaking “off the cuff” and ad lib.
Correct?

Does anyone really imagine that St. John needed
a written account to explain Christ from? Really?

That’s tantamount to me saying I can describe my
mother to you but only if I can read a biography of her
to you.

 

[joe371]

Again no where in the Carholic Encyclopedia does it
state he was excommunicated by the Pope for his protest of abuses.
You failed to quote the article accurately.
This time I leave it to you to correct your own error
as a. Again off topic and b. another fantasy martyr
like Luther. Tiresome.
My suggestion is you quote word for word what your
own chosen article stated as to what caused the ex
communications. And for the matter of honesty
perhaps you could also explain your own chosen
article’s last paragraph summary where it cites
where he was right and where he went terribly wrong.

But again you have failed to provide an example
of the Church ex communicating someone for protesting
abuses. And you won’t be able to either because
the Church never has.

Oops, my bad. Sorry…Don’t forget, I’m catholic too… LOL…

 

[benjohnson]

I don’t dare say the word tradition to my sister…LOL…

A dirty trick is to being up Martin Luther’s belief - many Protestants have their guard down when you bring him up.

 

[benjohnson]

There of course were abuses, no doubt in every century and in every church, regardless of denomination.

We Lutherans certainly don’t have clean hands!

Frankly, for us as a church body, the model of how to deal with it is the same as how we individuals deal with sin - repent, be pennant, and trust in the grace of the Lord.

 

[joe371]

We Lutheran’s certainly don’t have clean hands!

Frankly, for us Lutherans as a church body, the model of how to deal with it is the same as how we individuals deal with sin - repent, be pennant, and trust in the grace of the Lord.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Again no where in the Carholic Encyclopedia does it
state he was excommunicated by the Pope for his protest of abuses.
You failed to quote the article accurately.
This time I leave it to you to correct your own error
as a. Again off topic and b. another fantasy martyr
like Luther. Tiresome.
My suggestion is you quote word for word what your
own chosen article stated as to what caused the ex
communications. And for the matter of honesty
perhaps you could also explain your own chosen
article’s last paragraph summary where it cites
where he was right and where he went terribly wrong.

But again you have failed to provide an example
of the Church ex communicating someone for protesting
abuses. And you won’t be able to either because
the Church never has.

Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

"In the beginning Savonarola was filled with zeal, piety, and self-sacrifice for the regeneration of religious life. He was led to offend against these virtues by his fanaticism, obstinacy, and disobedience.** He was not a heretic in matters of faith**. The erection of his statue at the foot of Luther’s monument at Worms as a reputed “forerunner of the Reformation” is entirely unwarranted. "

If he was not a heretic in matters of faith, per the CE. Can you tell us WHY he was excommunicated and murdered by the Borgia Pope?

 

[Faithdancer]

The devil hates Jesus’ Catholic Church, so we should not be surprised to see such scandals; only saddened, and remember that Satan can never destroy Jesus’ church. Truth is inviolable because we have Jesus as the Head and Savior of the Catholic Church.

Is that, “Roman” Catholic Church? What about the Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Evangelicals, etc? Just hoping you will clarify…