A
adf417
Guest
:thumbsup:I like and agree with this Jon. Can I quote you on this one?
- Status
Sure.
Jon
C
concretecamper
Guest
Jon, you forgot the 3rd leg of the stool. It is scripture, tradition, and magisterial teaching. So tradition doesn’t necessarily need to define that the pope can speak from The “chair of Peter”
The popes have spoken ex cathedra on many occasions. The earliest one that comes to mind is:
“Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ,
So…tradition supports ex cathedra statements. Now, kindly answer my question.
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
K
KEP1983
Guest
Clearly you misunderstood my point.
Yes, the reason different people disagree is based upon their exegesis and hermeneutics.
Fine, you can point to Rob Bell as a liberal heretic. I agree, even though he actually DOES do a lot of exegesis and hermeneutics to come to his conclusions.
But you can look to very conservative “orthodox” Protestants who apply the art and science of exegesis and hermeneutics and come to wildly different interpretations.
Hank Hanegraaff believes in partial preterism and denies the concept of a final 7 year tribulation period started by a rapture, while Jack Van Impe, John Hagee, and Hal Lindsey have built entire ministries upon dispensationalism.
Martin Luther believed in consubstantiation and baptismal regeneration. John Calvin denied both. Both gave solid biblical reasons for their beliefs; yet came to extremely different conclusions.
John Calvin believed in absolute (double) pre-destination. Jacobus Arminius denied pre-destination altogether.
I could go on and on and on.
All of these are very conservative bible scholars who exegete from the original Greek and Hebrew and engage in the art and science of biblical interpretation and hermeneutics; and yet are incapable of coming to any consensus.
The original disagreements, for the first 400 years, were mostly theological. There still has been no consensus amongst Protestants on their theological differences.
Now, since the 60’s, the theological differences has slowly turned into moral differences. It began in the 60’s when MOST Protestant denominations were against contraception. One by one they all fell into accepting it. 20 years ago hardly any mainstream evangelical would openly call for accepting gay marriage. Now you have entire denominations falling into it.
Sola scriptura simply doesn’t work.
As Jesus said, “a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand” (Mark 3:24). And there’s little wonder why the so-called Enlightenment came directly after the Protestant Revolution.
And you’re right that the problem isn’t necessarily “sola scriptura,” but is “human sin.” Sola scriptura was Martin Luther’s sin, and we’re still suffering the consequences of it.
K
KEP1983
Guest
Wrong. An Ecumenical Council is a Council held by all the Bishops who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Meaning the Eastern Orthodox schism is irrelevant to your claim, because the Eastern Orthodox are by definition not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Even they understand this, because they haven’t held a council for 1,000 years and even state themselves that they’re not sure what makes a Council “Ecumenical.”
K
KEP1983
Guest
I just passed your definition of Sola Scriptura by a Protestant Pastor friend. He completely disagreed with your definition.
Now who has the authority to define which is the correct definition of “sola scriptura”?
A
Arizona_Samson
Guest
Straw man.
If Luther gets the blame/credit for SS, then Lutheranism gets the default definition.I just passed your definition of Sola Scriptura by a Protestant Pastor friend. He completely disagreed with your definition.
Now who has the authority to define which is the correct definition of “sola scriptura”?
Jon
C
CatholicKnight3
Guest
I guess no one wants to acknowledge the evidence in SCRIPTURE that the Church was given authority.
Again, the Mosaic Law is scripture. Not WAS scripture, but IS scripture. Even more so, it was Gods Law. Make no mistake, it was to be followed.
Mathew 23:1
**The Sadducees and Pharisees sit on the THRONE OF MOSES therefore do all they tell you. **
So, what does that mean? There was a real reason for the debate. The CHURCH made a decision. Of course, this is IN SCRIPTURE. The Council of Jerusalem is that significant for a variety of reasons. The first is it was a departure from the MOSAIC LAW which is SCRIPTURE. Two, it is established that the CHURCH is the pillar, and when Christ said he gave the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM, WHATSOEVER you bind shall be bound, and whatsoever you loosen, shall be loosened. It establishes the authority by Christ THROUGH the Holy Spirit that the Church is the AUTHORITY.
The whole notion that there are tens of thousands of different interpretations and established churches all claiming access to divine truth is in itself absurd enough to question if that is the way it was suppose to be.
We can get into debate on whether or not there have been Saints over the years like Saint Francis (both of them, Francis De Sale) reformed the Church from with in with out attacking the sacraments. There is a distinction and yes, many Saints have reformed the Church. I can make an argument that they all reformed the church. No, not them, but the Holy Spirit through them. You get my point.
Sometimes we think there was ONE reformation period. There is a constant “reformation” going on. Meaning, I believe the Church is constantly going through “conversions” and being brought into a higher state of grace. Constantly being transformed. Well, what the world calls “the reformation” I see as the great apostasy. Should any and all mortal sins on behalf of the church fathers be illuminated? Yes. Is there a graceful way to do that with out departing from the Sacraments? Yes.
Again, the Mosaic Law is scripture. Not WAS scripture, but IS scripture. Even more so, it was Gods Law. Make no mistake, it was to be followed.
Mathew 23:1
**The Sadducees and Pharisees sit on the THRONE OF MOSES therefore do all they tell you. **
So, what does that mean? There was a real reason for the debate. The CHURCH made a decision. Of course, this is IN SCRIPTURE. The Council of Jerusalem is that significant for a variety of reasons. The first is it was a departure from the MOSAIC LAW which is SCRIPTURE. Two, it is established that the CHURCH is the pillar, and when Christ said he gave the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM, WHATSOEVER you bind shall be bound, and whatsoever you loosen, shall be loosened. It establishes the authority by Christ THROUGH the Holy Spirit that the Church is the AUTHORITY.
The whole notion that there are tens of thousands of different interpretations and established churches all claiming access to divine truth is in itself absurd enough to question if that is the way it was suppose to be.
We can get into debate on whether or not there have been Saints over the years like Saint Francis (both of them, Francis De Sale) reformed the Church from with in with out attacking the sacraments. There is a distinction and yes, many Saints have reformed the Church. I can make an argument that they all reformed the church. No, not them, but the Holy Spirit through them. You get my point.
Sometimes we think there was ONE reformation period. There is a constant “reformation” going on. Meaning, I believe the Church is constantly going through “conversions” and being brought into a higher state of grace. Constantly being transformed. Well, what the world calls “the reformation” I see as the great apostasy. Should any and all mortal sins on behalf of the church fathers be illuminated? Yes. Is there a graceful way to do that with out departing from the Sacraments? Yes.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes. This is something that I have noted of late, since coming to the CAFs: there are numerous definitions of SS.
And with no Protestant magisterium, there is no way to authoritatively declare one def the actual one.
C
CatholicKnight3
Guest
Yes, this is pretty much true. However, I am pretty sure, that when they claim sola scriptura, they are pretty much saying the bible is their authority and not a man made church with man made traditions. Therefore, the notion of one magisterium setting doctrine would not be a part of the thinking whether it be protestant or ROMAN Catholic.
They do not recognize, and refuse to accept church authority. So, anyone claiming sola scriptura is essentially saying this.
Of course, that leads to a variety of problems. Cause the way I see it in regards to that is they do not actually go by scripture. They actually go by their PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of scripture. That, ties into “personal Lord and Savior.” One thing to have a personal intimate relationship with Christ. In order to have that (as we believe it) is the culmination with Holy Communion. It does not get any more personal than that. In accordance with SCRIPTURE, and with in the embrace of the Church. When this Holy Communion is done in faith, it does not get more personal.
Anyway, the notion of sola scriptura means the Church is not the authority and the bible is.That is the way I understand it anyway.
K
KEP1983
Guest
The Pastor who disagreed with your definition of Sola Scriptura was a Lutheran.If Luther gets the blame/credit for SS, then Lutheranism gets the default definition.
Jon
But why should I accept Luther over Calvin? (Or Zwingli or whoever for that matter). Perhaps Luther was only half right, and God had to send Calvin to really fix what Luther didn’t quite get right?
Calvin believed in SS, too. I’ve heard Calvinists and Lutherans have different definitions of SS. I’ve also heard individual Lutherans and Calvinists have different interpretations of Luther and Calvins definition. So how do we know whos interpretation of sola scriptura is correct?
And if Luther came along and had to correct everything, how do we know he wasn’t originally off on his definition of Sola Scriptura? Perhaps someone today can correct Luthers correction? Or do you think that Luther’s definition of Sola Scriptura was infallible? And is your interpretation of Luther’s definition of SS also infallible?
K
KEP1983
Guest
I’m guessing you haven’t studied philosophy and are unaware of what a straw man actually is.
My premises were directly related to Protestant interpretations of scripture. I presented two Protestants exegeting Scripture and coming to completely different conclusions.
My conclusion followed directly from my premises, and my premises came directly from commonly held Protestant definitions of Sola Scriptura.
Therefore it is not a straw man.
K
KEP1983
Guest
Clement of Rome
“Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1A.D. 95]).”
St Irenaeus
"Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give **to you **the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, **not what they shall have bound or they **shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 A.D. 220]).
Cyprian
“With a* false bishop appointed for themselves *by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).
Cyprian
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).
I could go on and on. But I have to get to work.*
T
TexanKnight
Guest
really? The Catholic Church has remained steadfast. Cafeteria Catholics are the issue, not the Church.So, there is no debate among Catholics on this issue? Catholics are in lock-step?
How about on abortion. What percent of Catholics voted for Obama?
Over the last 1,000 years, how successful has sacred Tradition been in solving the Great. Schism? I guess Tradition has failed, too.
Jon
H
Heliotropium
Guest
Christ is the Way the Truth and the Life and as St. John states there aren’t enough books in the world that could contain everything Christ did. It is the Holy Spirit who will guide the Church, the Pillar of Truth, into all truth. The Holy Spirit working through the teaching authority of the Church will illuminate those things which where handed down to us by letter and by word from the Apostles. Not everything worthy of faith could have been written since not everything Christ did could have been written.
T
Tomster
Guest
T
Tomster
Guest
- Status