Why sola Scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
=Charlemagne II;11253531]
Yes, it does. Protestantism splintered Christianity into a thousand sects, thereby destroying the principle of strength in unity. You never saw the kind of agnosticism and atheism in the Middle Ages that you see today. Protestantism dilutes Christianity because Christianity no longer speaks with one powerful voice
Click to expand...
The part I bolded I agree with, but the issue of division is a shared issue, and Catholicism holds its share, as well.
“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou has sent me.” - John 17:20-21
Click to expand...
“Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:16).
Click to expand...
Amen
Today, thanks to Protestantism, there certainly is not one flock and one shepherd.
Click to expand...
There hadn’t been one flock for 500 years before the Reformation.
That is why Europe is dying spiritually, and so are we, Catholics and Protestants together.
Click to expand...
I, in part, agree, but it is not the exclusive fault on any particular communion, whether it be termed protestant, or it be Catholic. It is a shared fault.

Jon
 
**Jon

I, in part, agree, but it is not the exclusive fault on any particular communion, whether it be termed protestant, or it be Catholic. It is a shared fault.**

The Catholic Church did not break from the Protestants. The Catholics cannot come home to the Protestants. The Protestants can came home to the Catholics. It is not the fault of the Catholic Church if the Protestants will not come home.
 
Per_Crucem said:
No denying that the Pope was instrumental in the modern country of Poland. No one is disputing that Catholicism has a positive affect when it is faithfully implemented. Christianity does that. However, the disintegration has nothing to do with Protestantism. Europe is a millennia and a half old, blood soaked continent. We can’t pretend that it was ever particularly Christian. Countries are not Christian. People either are or aren’t.
Click to expand...
I don’t accept that the disunity of Christians has been a good thing.
 
Please don’t belittle the fact it is a miracle it is that the Polish people have remained staunchly Catholic look at how many times it has been occupied and who they have occupied by and it is a miracle they are Catholic.
 
**Per

However, the disintegration has nothing to do with Protestantism. Europe is a millennia and a half old, blood soaked continent. We can’t pretend that it was ever particularly Christian. Countries are not Christian. People either are or aren’t.**

Read some history. 😉
 
Charlemagne_II said:
**Jon

I, in part, agree, but it is not the exclusive fault on any particular communion, whether it be termed protestant, or it be Catholic. It is a shared fault.**

The Catholic Church did not break from the Protestants. The Catholics cannot come home to the Protestants. The Protestants can came home to the Catholics. It is not the fault of the Catholic Church if the Protestants will not come home.
Click to expand...
Still a shared fault. 🤷

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Still a shared fault. 🤷

Jon
Click to expand...
But asymmetrical. And by that I don’t necessarily mean that the fault is greater on one side than on the other, but that the kinds of fault on each side are radically different (in some aspects–obviously in other ways they are direct mirrors of each other).

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
But asymmetrical. And by that I don’t necessarily mean that the fault is greater on one side than on the other, but that the kinds of fault on each side are radically different (in some aspects–obviously in other ways they are direct mirrors of each other).

Edwin
Click to expand...
No argument. What I dispute is the attempt, by either side, to lay the entire blame on the other.

Jon
 
**Jon

Still a shared fault.**

In what way is it still a shared fault? :confused:
 
JonNC said:
Still a shared fault. 🤷

Jon
Click to expand...
WAIT WAIT WAIT!!! It is not a shared fault, the doctrine the Church teaches which is infallible has never been wrong it cannot be in the areas of faith or morals, the people of the Church who are fallible have done things wrong and have not lived up to their obligations and have caused scandal but the doctrine has never been wrong, it simply cannot be.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
**Jon

Still a shared fault.**

In what way is it still a shared fault? :confused:
Click to expand...
Ever read your catechism? 😉

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”
 
benjohnson said:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7260
Click to expand...
Quite interesting:
  1. Would you say that Luther was wrong in declaring a reformation to be necessary?
I do not deny that a reformation was necessary. There were many abuses to be corrected. But Luther did not introduce a movement of real reform. He made prevalent abuses an excuse to leave the Church altogether, instead of remaining in it and trying to effect the conversion of its lax members to better ways. Moreover, he retained many of the very abuses, merely seeking to justify them by denying that they were wrong, and sanctioned yet further departures from the standards of true Christianity.

Feudalism was breaking up in Europe. Vassal rulers in the provinces were growing more and more restive, and independent. Luther had but to breathe on flames already enkindled; and he did so by appealing to the ambition and spirit of independence amongst the German princes, urging revolt against the Emperor. And he flattered their cupidity and pride by advising them to despoil the Church of its property in their domains, and to take upon themselves the control of the doctrine and morals of their subjects.
  1. Was not the power of Romanism shattered by Martin Luther, of immortal memory?
Martin Luther is undoubtedly an outstanding figure in history. But, as I have explained it, the whole situation constituted the moment in history when one man could launch the tempest. Meantime, the immortal memory of Luther will become less and less pleasant as the facts concerning him become known. Those who idealize him can do so only by ignoring an immense amount of inconvenient information.
  1. Catholic historians, of course, paint Luther in the blackest colors.
I am quite willing to admit that many Catholic writers have given a biased account of Luther, even as books written by Protestants have given a distorted view of the Catholic position — and to a far greater extent. But I still say that an impartial study of history cannot but discredit Luther as a religious reformer.
 
Jon

I guess I did not ask the question correctly.

“In what way is it** still** a shared fault?”

What I meant was, since the Reformation period has passed, and the Church is no longer in the saddle of power and corruption it once rode, (as the Catechism admits, yes I have read the Catechism) why is it STILL a shared fault that Lutherans have broken from the Church?

So I ask again, in what way is it STILL a shared fault that the Lutherans cannot come home because we certainly do not have the same Catholic Church Luther railed against?

Again, the Catholics cannot come home to the Lutherans. They were never at home with the Lutherans to begin with. It is the choice of the Lutherans never to return home to the Church they left behind. That seems to me not a shared fault, unless the Lutherans want to argue that the Catholics are still corrupt in morals and teachings as ever.
 
**pablope

But I still say that an impartial study of history cannot but discredit Luther as a religious reformer. **

All the more so true in the light of Christ’s own words:

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou has sent me.” - John 17:20-21

“Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:16).
 
Charlemagne_II said:
So I ask again, in what way is it STILL a shared fault that the Lutherans cannot come home because we certainly do not have the same Catholic Church Luther railed against?
Click to expand...
Despite the progress, there are still issues:

From the Lutheran perspective, you’ve added dogma in the last 500 years that isn’t from the Gospel: Papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, turning pious beliefs about the Theotokos into dogma necessary for salvation, turning the Eucharistic Mystery into a kind of recipe (good though it is), Purgatory, and making Communion with the Pope a requirement for salvation.
 
JonNC said:
Still a shared fault. 🤷

Jon
Click to expand...
Jon-

My problem with Lutheranism (not individual Lutherans) is this: the issues that Luther raised were addressed long ago. So, why haven’t y’all come back to the Church that needed reform and underwent it? 🤷

The fact of the matter is that in addition to raising some questions about matters that needed reform, Luther also added his own personal ideas into the mix (most notably sola scriptura and sola fide). Now, based on some articles I have read, I think that if the terms are properly defined, we can probably bridge the sola fide divide. But Catholics can never concede to anything remotely resembling sola scriptura because that doctrine was never taught by the Church throughout its history.

So, although Luther would probably be pleased to see that much of what he objected to has been addressed by the Catholic Church, you Lutherans can’t come home again because of the theological novelty that he introduced.

One other point: having lived out on your own for so long, I think you are now unwilling to submit to Papa’s authority should you ever seek shelter under our roof.
 
steido01 said:
Ever read your catechism? 😉

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”
Click to expand...
This is correct. Thank you for posting. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top