Why sola Scriptura?

[benjohnson]

I guess what I’m getting at is this: was it understood by all in 1516 that the Church was infallible?

If so, what changed in 1517 so that by 1518 (or today) that is no longer acceptable?

Most Christians trust their church and pastors - with good reason. Most shepherds are good ones . Sure the weirdos get the headlines, but no other institution can match the church for good leadership.

I’m reminded of the creed: I believe in the holy, catholic, and apostolic church. We believe it even if we don’t see it all the time - it’s a matter of faith.

Perhaps the infallible church will even be obvious even to us Lutherans when we heed Jesus’s prayer - that they all may be one.

 

[pablope]

Just to clarify an oversight, Theotokos is a doctrine in Lutheranism.

In some areas, Pablope, it seems no danger to allow pious beliefs. It is my understanding that, on the Assumption, Catholics can freely believe that the Blessed died before her assumption, or not. And, as I understand it, belief in Marian apparitions is also up to the believer.

Jon

But again, Jon…that is not the point of the question I asked BenJ…and he skipped over them…who decides what is in the article of faith to bind the believer…the laity (who decides for himself) or the bishop?

Who has the authority to bind and loose-the laity or the bishop?

On the Assumption, the pope decided not to make a definite decision on the death or not of the BVM…but what is made definite is the Assumption to Heaven, which is the whole point of the Assumption…not whether the BVM physically died or not.

This is quite an enlightening short piece by JPII:

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm53.htm

aving been closely associated with Christ’s redemptive work, it was fitting for Mary to share the experience of death before partaking of the Resurrection
“The experience of death personally enriched the Blessed Virgin: by undergoing mankind’s common destiny, she can more effectively exercise her spiritual motherhood towards those approaching the last moment of their life”, the Holy Father said at the General Audience of Wednesday, 25 June, as he reflected on the dormition of the Mother of God. Here is a translation of the Pope’s catechesis, which was the 53rd in the series on the Blessed Mother and was given in Italian.

 

[pablope]

Most Christians trust their church and pastors - with good reason. .

And when these pastors are trusted…don’t the average Christian have some hope, some trust…that the HS is guiding their pastors?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Most Christians trust their church and pastors - with good reason. Most shepherds are good ones . Sure the weirdos get the headlines, but no other institution can match the church for good leadership.

I’m reminded of the creed: I believe in the holy, catholic, and apostolic church. We believe it even if we don’t see it all the time - it’s a matter of faith.

Perhaps the infallible church will even be obvious even to us Lutherans when we heed Jesus’s prayer - that they all may be one.

None of which answers my questions.

 

[KP3243]

Part of the problem is most American Protestants don’t realize they use sacred tradition where Catholics do recognize it and it causes conflict. Without sacred tradition, Protestants wouldn’t get married in their parishes and have their pastor preside over their ceremony, that comes from Catholic tradition because Christ made it a sacrament and Catholics followed from Jewish tradition. Same thing with Sunday being the Lord’s Day and moving the Sabbath to Sunday. The biggest issue I have is with the Eucharist, denying the Lord is a very bad thing, it is explicitly spelled out in sacred scripture but somehow that has morphed into only a symbol, I had to ask people if their Bibles had the 6th Chapter of John in it because I don’t know how else you could read that and come up with any other conclusion than Jesus speaking literally. His literal interpretation of eating His flesh was such a turn off many disciples left Him people don’t do that if they think they found their long awaited Messiah and he is speaking symbolically they don’t just take off if they believe He is God.

 

[KP3243]

I always thought there were nine types of angels in the hierarchy.

catholic.org/saints/angels/angelchoir.php

Its why I was disappointed the show the Game of Thrones wasn’t about the angelic hierarchy.

 

[benjohnson]

None of which answers my questions.

I can’t really answer it as I’m not familiar with what 1516 German peasants though.

Now the fact that many of them did pay for indulgences would lead me to think that they did trust the church even though the practice is not God’s command.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Either the early Church was infallible or it was not. Either the New Testament Scriptures read by Protestants today were infallibly written and infallibly authorized by the Catholic Church as a New Testament in the 4th Century or they were not. If they were not infallibly presented to the world, then it is possible to make of them what we wish, or ignore them altogether since they might be fully of error and heresy. But no Protestant believes that (though he might like to think he can interpret them any way he likes). So if the infallibility of Scripture was assured by the Catholic Church, and it was infallibly assured, the next question a Protestant should ask himself is this one:

When, why, where, and how after the 4th century did the Catholic Church lose its power to infallibly guide the faithful?

And why does Lutheranism not claim infallibility if it claims to be more truthful than the Catholic Church? Does it claim to have the truth, but is not quite certain it has the truth?

 

[Contarini]

Either the early Church was infallible or it was not. Either the New Testament Scriptures read by Protestants today were infallibly written and infallibly authorized by the Catholic Church as a New Testament in the 4th Century or they were not.

No, it’s not that simple. It was a process, and as I showed you earlier from the Catholic Encyclopedia, the process continued after the fourth century, although to all intents and purposes it was settled for the Western Church at that time.

If they were not infallibly presented to the world, then it is possible to make of them what we wish, or ignore them altogether since they might be fully of error and heresy.

No, that’s not true. Reality isn’t as clear-cut as that. We respect all kinds of things that haven’t been “infallibly” settled.

And whenever you start using infallibility as an epistemological criterion, you run into the unanswerable “infinite regress” problem. There is simply no way around this problem if you are claiming that infallibility gives absolute certainty. It’s only ever a conditional certainty: if I am right in believing that the Church can declare things infallibly, and if I am right that this power inheres in the Roman Communion as it exists today in continuity with the historic Catholic Church, and if I am right that this particular decision meets the criteria of infallibility, then I have certainty . . . But the certainty is only as great as the combined certainty of those three fallible suppositions.

and it was infallibly assured, the next question a Protestant should ask himself is this one:

When, why, where, and how after the 4th century did the Catholic Church lose its power to infallibly guide the faithful?

I think you would have a stronger case if you didn’t rest it on the term “infallibly” but rather asked practically why Protestants trust the fourth-century Church on such things as the canonicity of II Peter.

Edwin

 

[benjohnson]

And why does Lutheranism not claim infallibility if it claims to be more truthful than the Catholic Church? Does it claim to have the truth, but is not quite certain it has the truth?

Awesome question! Let me take my Lutheran hat off an answer this personally as an recent Agnostic turned Christian.

Christianity is one of the ‘weakest’ religions - our God was nailed to wood and died, His apostles died in horrid ways, we don’t pray for power and might but for forgiveness, and He offers is His body to eat.

So from the evidence, it may not quite seem rational depending on your upbringing.

Simply, in my estimation you can’t come to Christianity demanding proofs and absolute assurances of truth because if you base your faith on this evidence, you’ll eventually run into a case where reality seen though your intellect and upbringing doesn’t match what Christ tells you: You see bread and wine and Christ tells you it’s his Body and Blood. Or you see a favorite bible verse in Greek and understand that you understood it wrong. Or the pastor didn’t behave pastorally.

So “absolute truth” is not a bulwark for faith, in fact, my guess is that it can cause harm to faith if you spend too much time in this world and are let down.

Now let me put my Lutheran hat back on…

Lutherans don’t need assurances from the men of the Church - we have our assurance from God. We preach Christ crucified and receive the sacraments.

Finally…and here’s the important bit… If we Lutherans are in error, we invite correction, and would give you thanks.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Ben

Finally…and here’s the important bit… If we Lutherans are in error, we invite correction, and would give you thanks.**

If your Lutheran Church teaches doctrinal error, where is the Holy Spirit to protect you?

As a Catholic I would never say, “We might be in error. If we are, we invite correction.”

Rather, I would say, “The Holy Spirit will infallibly protect us from false doctrines.”

Do Lutherans say that?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Contarini

if I am right in believing that the Church can declare things infallibly, and if I am right that this power inheres in the Roman Communion as it exists today in continuity with the historic Catholic Church, and if I am right that this particular decision meets the criteria of infallibility, then I have certainty . . . But the certainty is only as great as the combined certainty of those three fallible suppositions.**

This is unnecessarily complicating the question.

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18 (King James Version).

Surely one of the ways for the gates of hell to prevail against it would be that it should teach false doctrines.

It must therefore be infallible when it declares any doctrine with a degree of certainty.

 

[benjohnson]

**

You’ll notice that I put “if” in front of my plea for correction. If we thought we were in error, then we would deceit.

Lutherans leave a lot of stuff up to as God’s prerogative - we don’t define the Eucharist in metaphysical terms, and we don’t define the purgation of sin before he heaven.

So asking us if we’re infallible will usually get a vague non answer. Like this. **

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Ben

So asking us if we’re infallible will usually get a vague non answer. Like this.**

Right back atcha!

 

[Contarini]

**Contarini

if I am right in believing that the Church can declare things infallibly, and if I am right that this power inheres in the Roman Communion as it exists today in continuity with the historic Catholic Church, and if I am right that this particular decision meets the criteria of infallibility, then I have certainty . . . But the certainty is only as great as the combined certainty of those three fallible suppositions.**

This is unnecessarily complicating the question.

No, it’s describing the question truthfully, instead of skating over thin air.

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18 (King James Version).

Surely one of the ways for the gates of hell to prevail against it would be that it should teach false doctrines.

It must therefore be infallible when it declares any doctrine with a degree of certainty.

This requires you to believe that

1. The passage in question is authentic (which, as you yourself have been arguing, implies acceptance of the Church’s authority in the first place )
2. The gates of hell would prevail if the Church were to teach false doctrine (which is plausible but far from obvious)
3. The promise is made to Peter as the first of a line of authoritative leaders of the Church
4. The present bishops of Rome are the authentic successors of St. Peter
5. The decision under consideration at any given moment fits the criteria of infallibility

Again, combine all of these suppositions and you have something much less than complete certainty.

I believe that, in fact, the bishops of Rome are infallible under the very narrow limits set forth in Catholic doctrine. I’m not disputing that. I’m disputing the overly confident and simplistic ways you and others speak of this difficult doctrine, and the epistemological comfort that many Catholics falsely draw from it.

Edwin

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Contarini

Again, combine all of these suppositions and you have something much less than complete certainty.**

I have complete certainty that the New Testament is from God. Don’t you?

I believe that, in fact, the bishops of Rome are infallible under the very narrow limits set forth in Catholic doctrine. I’m not disputing that. I’m disputing the overly confident and simplistic ways you and others speak of this difficult doctrine, and the epistemological comfort that many Catholics falsely draw from it.

Well, I can’t help that you think what we say is simplistic and overly confident.

I imagine myself not being truly convinced of infallibility and how truly lost I might feel without it.

Not my infallibility, but the infallibility of God’s true Church with one flock and one shepherd.

 

[benjohnson]

I imagine myself not being truly convinced of infallibility and how truly lost I might feel without it.

If that ever does happen, just remind yourself that Orthodox and Lutherans do somewhat ok without it and march back into your Catholic church even if.

 

[MaryT777]

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.

In my neck of the woods the LCMS Lutherans openly teach The RC Church teaches/preaches works righteousness which is a false doctrine and the office of the papacy is anti Christ
Thus the Lutherans will not come “home” to the Catholic Church for they do not agree with the doctrine. There are huge differences in Justification with the LCMS and the Catholic Church. Your post is right on, in my town they openly state we have some corrupt teachings. Needless to say anti Christ is a pretty strong statement in and of
itself.

Saying both Churches have the Word and the Sacraments as some Lutherans say here is odd at best for we don’t teach Sola Scriptura and we don’t have the same understanding of the Sacrament of Holy Communion nor do we recognize the same number of Sacraments.

Thus although liturgically if you visit the LCMS it may appear to be Catholic it’s really night and day the differences between the two Churches. I don’t find them remotely similar
after studying with thte LCMS for two years.

Mary.

 

[Contarini]

**Contarini

Again, combine all of these suppositions and you have something much less than complete certainty.**

I have complete certainty that the New Testament is from God. Don’t you?

I accept it by faith. As. St. Thomas says, on the purely intellectual side faith is the same as opinion, not knowledge (though some matters of faith are also matters of knowledge).

If you have complete, demonstrative certainty that the NT is inspired by God, you have something that St. Thomas believed impossible (and so, as far as I know, did every other great Doctor of the Church, though I may be wrong on that point).

I believe that, in fact, the bishops of Rome are infallible under the very narrow limits set forth in Catholic doctrine. I’m not disputing that. I’m disputing the overly confident and simplistic ways you and others speak of this difficult doctrine, and the epistemological comfort that many Catholics falsely draw from it.

Well, I can’t help that you think what we say is simplistic and overly confident.

“We” here not being Catholics as a whole, but you and certain other Catholics who zealously desire to defend your Church but do so in a simplistic manner.

I imagine myself not being truly convinced of infallibility and how truly lost I might feel without it.

Not my infallibility, but the infallibility of God’s true Church with one flock and one shepherd.

I think infallibility is important, as I’ve said, because it gives substance to indefectibilty, ad without indefectibility you must either give up adherence to dogmatic truth at all or keep one eye always trained on the exit in case your church apostasizes. This makes unity, without a complete abandonment of dogma, impossible. It may (though I’m less sure of this) make faith impossible, as the Catholic blogger and philosopher Michael Liccione argues. So I’m not disputing that it’s important. I’m just arguing that it doesn’t give certainty or make things particularly simple. In many ways it makes things more complicated, because it adds another set of questions that have to be asked–not only “is this true” but “has this been infallibly settled.”

Edwin

 

[pablope]

A

Now let me put my Lutheran hat back on…