Find the chapter(s) and verse(s) in which the sacraments are named as such, then apply the same standard.
Yes, if we followed Paul’s counsel, stood firm and held fast to what we were taught by Paul and the Apostles, by word of mouth or by letter, the church would be in fine shape. Unfortunately the distortions and aberrations that have occurred since Paul’s day make a mockery of your contention.
Why? The Deposit of Faith is Tradition and Scripture. We can read of the sacraments long before the biblical canon came into place. We can read about the sacraments in the early Church, all seven, long before there was a bible canonized. What we don’t read about is a Church believing that the bible alone - while inerrant and inspired - is all that is needed for salvation.
Catholics would agree that there are many distortions that go against the bible and the Tradtiion handed down from the apostles including:
But Simka, that is not our tradition as Catholics. That is yours.
The problem I see with using the Fathers to support either side is they would have no idea of the contextuals surrounding it. They speak with no knowledge of a Great Schism, nor of a Reformation and all its causes. So, they would have no understanding of why the Lutheran reformers would determine that “popes and councils have contradicted each other”, and reliance on scripture as a final norm became, in their view, necessary.Man, there are many interpretations of the practise of sola scripture. I finally just gave up…LOL…Some, unlike you, even insist that the apostles supported their version of the practice…
Nope. Not mine; and not according to SS. That’s not what it says.
Well…where has this mockery and distortion and aberrations have occurred?
Well, yes, sometimes … I suppose that would depend on the particular “split”. Rejecting heretical teaching, refusing to follow leaders that seek to draw people down that path, and starting out on your own, would be one example that I would tend to regard as holding fast to Apostolic doctrine as Paul taught it.
Fair enough.
:sad_yes: I often wonder what the apostles would have thought about the following: the reliance on scripture as a final norm?
No, we’re not agreed. There are two differing categories: (1) If you offer a doctrine, or a tradition, or a practice, and claim it is a teaching or an activity that must be believed or adhered to in order for one to be saved, then that doctrine must accord with scripture. That doesn’t mean the doctrine is a mere parroting of scriptural texts. A doctrine which may be reasonably and logically derived from scriptural teaching is equally valid.
Why must it? Where did you read that? You can search Genesis to Revelation and you won’t find a single verse that says the above.
I can’t think of a single doctrine, tradition or practice that the Catholic Church proclaims must be believed or adhered to in order to be saved that contradicts Scripture.
Catholics don’t derive their doctrine from Scripture, Simka.
Amen! This is very Catholic!
I’m not going to argue that point with you. But surely you realize that 500 years ago, disagreement over what you just said was a driving force behind the Reformation Movement.
What was the catalyst behind the PR was corruption in church leaders, not doctrines or teachings that were “contrary to Scripture”.
In order to be saved we must say yes to Christ and His Church. We give assent to Divine Revelation, which is proclaimed to us through 2 channels: Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.
The catalyst, the initial spark that set off the powder keg … you’re quite right. But once it got started, the writings of Luther, and Calvin, and Cranmer, and Knox make it clear that what they considered heretical doctrine was also a driving force for change.
So, as long as it is not formalized into a church doctrine – and on the understanding that it is not a repudiation of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion – are you OK with the positional statement that “the Scriptures contain all knowledge necessary (i.e. are materially sufficient) for salvation.”?
That they proclaimed a Catholic doctrine to be contrary to Scripture was an erroneous declaration.
I don’t understand this premise. What “other authorities” govern non-Catholic Christians?
Given that I don’t understand your premise, I can’t answer the above until you clarify.
Not according to SS? Whose SS interpretation? You have yet to tell us who has the correct SS formal declaration?
Show us where Scripture teaches: Doctrines MUST accord with scripture?
After you show us where Scriptue teaches explicitness and everything must be said and taught from Scripture. Remember…it is a SS standard…so after you…please.
Again…WHERE DOES SCRIPTURE or the early church teach such a position? Second of all, WHO made such a declaration?