Sola Scriptura (2)

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Wouldn't a lack of a concretely defined body of Scripture result in a 'phantom' as you have said of Tradition?

Not at all. There is no law that states what is the law of every jurisdiction on May 9, 2012 at 12:14 PDT. But that doesn't render the Rule of Law irrelevant as a rule.....

We DO have a very ancient, very ecumenical embrace of 66 books. In fact, it has been noted that this is one of THE most ecumenical embraces in all of Christianity. Yes - I know - we have 4 denominations that don't agree with any but itself on what is and is not Scripture (4 out of 50,000): the OOC, EOC, RCC and LDS. I know that. But with the exception of the LDS, this appears to have ZERO impact on the usefulness of this rule in this process (I've read Psalm 151). And as I've stated repeatedly, if you want to accept accountability and Scripture as the norma normans, feel free to include Psalm 151 in what you regard as Scripture. Or the 16th century books the RCC denomination embraced. Or those that the OOC embraces. Or those the EOC embraces. FINE WITH ME!!!! I've yet to ever know a single Protestant who objects. But that's NEVER the issue. N.E.V.E.R. The reason for rejecting Scripture as the rule has NOTHING to do with books (not even for the LDS), it has to do with whether a teacher (denomination, person) will permit accountability to anything in the sole, singular, particular, unique, individual case of self alone OR if that one mandates docilic submission to it itself as unto God Himself instead. THAT'S the issue.


But those that reject the Rule of Scripture in accountability (primarily the RCC and LDS) do NOT do so because they want their set of books accepted, they do so because they reject accountability, in the sole, individual, unique, distictive, particular, unique case of self alone. "I'M incapable of being wrong (in dogma, at least), ergo I'M exempt from accountability for what I myself teach (in dogma, anyway)." Read the Catechism of the RCC itself, # 87 to see what it mandates for itself. Read the Handbook of the Catholic Faith on this. Compare with "On the Authority of the Church" by the [LDS] Apostle Bruce McConkie. The reason for the rejection has NOTHING to do with Psalm 151, it has to do with the rejection of accountability to ANY rule in the sole, individual, unique, singular case of self. THAT'S the issue. I've given you the verbatim quotes.

I only waive accountability of the Catholic Church


.

I know. It's what makes you a Catholic.


I know. It's the reason for the rejection of Sola Scriptura by the RCC.


I know. The RC Denomination doesn't waive accountability for any other. Just itself. It ridicules others that do what it does in this regard.





Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Not at all. There is no law that states what is the law of every jurisdiction on May 9, 2012 at 12:14 PDT. But that doesn't render the Rule of Law irrelevant as a rule.....

But you have essentially stated that because there is no defined list of Traditions to use as the norma normans, Tradition is a 'phantom' and essentially irrelevant or unsound. How is that not a double standard?

We DO have a very ancient, very ecumenical embrace of 66 books. In fact, it has been noted that this is one of THE most ecumenical embraces in all of Christianity.

How do you define ecumenical? By the number of denominations, the number of individuals, the number of local parishes? Even then, why does 'ecumenicality' matter, if an appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

But you have essentially stated that because there is no defined list of Traditions to use as the norma normans, Tradition is a 'phantom' and essentially irrelevant or unsound. How is that not a double standard?

I see your point, it's just irrelevant... Tradition is wholly and entirely an invisible phantom. We have objective, knowable, unalterable, verbatim, black-and-white words of 66 books that we all accept. Yes, we have Psalm 151 - those knowable, objective, unatlerable, black-and-white words - but NO ONE seems to beleive those objective, knowable words MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE EITHER WAY. As I've repeatedly said, if you want to call them "Scripture" and use them as such THAT'S FINE WITH ME! As far as I know, every Protestant has taken that position. IT CHANGES NOTHING. True - a more ecumenical and helpful stance would be for you to embrace what ALL of us embrace (those 66 books), that would be the more helpful stance for you in an ecumenical situation, but we don't care. It makes no difference. Want to bring Psalm 151 with you? Perfectly okay. Changes nothing. AND of course, Psalm 151 is a knowable entity, it's not a phantom.


But you seem to be evading the OBVIOUS. The objection to using Scripture as the rule is not and has NEVER been disagreement over what is and is not Scripture. Never. Ever. Cuz the disagreements are tiny and irrelevant. The object is not over what Scriptures, the objection is over who among us is accountable to it or anything else, for that matter? As you so clearly and bluntly put, you "waive accountability" in the singular, sole, individual, particular, unique, case of the RC Denomination (as it itself instructs you to do). It exempts itself from accountability (and tells you to do the same), to WHAT doesn't matter because there is no accountability in the singular, sole, individual, unique, particular case of it itself alone. You've waived it. As it itself told you to do in the sole case of it itself. THAT'S why it rejects the Rule of Scripture. Not because it rejects Psalm 151 but the OOC and EOC do not. Accountability in the sole case of self is the issue, not Psalm 151. You do as the RC Denomination tells you to do: waive accountability in the sole case of it itself alone. It's what makes you Catholic.





.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I see your point, it's just irrelevant... Tradition is wholly and entirely an invisible phantom. We have objective, knowable, unalterable, verbatim, black-and-white words of 66 books that we all accept.

Tradition is more than present in written form. We have writings as early as the first century until this day. Mountains upon archives of writings.

But you seem to be evading the OBVIOUS. The objection to using Scripture as the rule is not and has NEVER been disagreement over what is and is not Scripture. Never. Ever.

Excuse me, but as a person who opposes Sola Scriptura, I think I have a little more say than you as to why I reject it. The matter of what constitutes Scripture is but one facet of my opposition to Sola Scriptura.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Tradition is

Just copy and paste the entire, verbatim, word-for-word content of it to here. Then (FINALLY!) we'll know what it is.

But you seem to be evading the OBVIOUS. The objection to using Scripture as the rule is not and has NEVER been disagreement over what is and is not Scripture. Never. Ever. Cuz the disagreements are tiny and irrelevant. The object is not over what Scriptures, the objection is over who among us is accountable to it or anything else, for that matter? As you so clearly and bluntly put, you "waive accountability" in the singular, sole, individual, particular, unique, case of the RC Denomination (as it itself instructs you to do). It exempts itself from accountability (and tells you to do the same), to WHAT doesn't matter because there is no accountability in the singular, sole, individual, unique, particular case of it itself alone. You've waived it. As it itself told you to do in the sole case of it itself. THAT'S why it rejects the Rule of Scripture. Not because it rejects Psalm 151 but the OOC and EOC do not. Accountability in the sole case of self is the issue, not Psalm 151. You do as the RC Denomination tells you to do: waive accountability in the sole case of it itself alone. It's what makes you Catholic.

The RCC does NOT say that it's dogmas are accountable to this "Tradition" that you have yet to tell us is. It says that it is INCAPABLE of error, INFALLIBLE, and is not accountable.... to anything (since accountability is irrelevant where there can be no error). You earlier made the point: You waive accountability in the sole case of the RC Denomination, just as it tells you to do. Thus, there is no accountability (in the sole, singular, unique, particular, unique case of it itself alone), it's been "waived" as you so correctly put it. There is no norming. There is no norma normans. There is no Rule. THAT'S why it rejects it. You stated it. Clear as a bell. Right on target.





.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Just copy and paste the entire, verbatim, word-for-word content of it to here. Then (FINALLY!) we'll know what it is.

Why do I have to copy and paste it here? I don't see you doing the same with Scripture.

 

[Standing Up]

Why do I have to copy and paste it here? I don't see you doing the same with Scripture.

The trouble is there is no Tradition that exists "out there" for all of Christianity to agree. EO has one, RC another, P something else.

But at the core, we all agree on the 66 books.

It's like going to a race without rules. One person says I'll bring a bike because traditionally they have wheels. Another says I'll bring a car because my bishop said to. Another says I'll run it because I want to.

What they need isn't something that talks about whether a bike has two wheels or three or one, but rules about the race per se---where would it be? A rule book. They have to write a rule book.

As Christians, we have that rule book. The real question here is whether Christians want to agree or remain in schism, running this way and that.

Now, I know those in schism will say I have my Tradition/Pope/Council, but they schism with each other! We want a common rule book----66 books of scripture.

Let's start there and see what we find, rather than each one bringing their own set of schisms.

 

[merchantoftruth]

That's only if you believe in original sin being inherited. It's why traditionally westerners look on the sex act as being dirty

This is one westerner who does not look on sex as "being dirty". That is a RC thing.

In spite of the RCC, I have always viewed sex between husband and wife as being a beautiful gift of God that symbolizes the intimate union of Christ and the Church in a physical representation that humans can grasp.

 

[merchantoftruth]

You have a certain ad hominem and one-up-manship kind of style that is perhaps popular in GT.

No more than yours.

 

[merchantoftruth]

Actually no, since Mother Mary's Immaculate Conception was brought about by the Salvic Graces of the Cross. Christ needed His Mother to be a pure so His 'human' flesh, taken from Her, wouldn't have to be 'saved'.

Produce the official RC teaching that says that.

That was another reason I had to leave the RCC. It held that God could do a miracle for Mary but not for Jesus.

The real Immaculate Conception is that of Jesus.

 

[Albion]

Why do I have to copy and paste it here? I don't see you doing the same with Scripture.

Yes, but we all have a copy of the Bible. No one knows what Tradition is or says to us, if anything. That's why some evidence would be important to have.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by ivebeenshown Why do I have to copy and paste it here? I don't see you doing the same with Scripture.

Yes, but we all have a copy of the Bible. No one knows what Tradition is or says to us, if anything.
That's why some evidence would be important to have.

What evidence would be required

http://www.christianforums.com/t7634884/

Just the Basics - Holy Tradition/Sola Scriptura

In the thread "Was the Reformation a Mistake," started by Pfaffenhofen, I emphasized that to truly understand the difference between Protestants and Catholics, there has to be a foundational focus on how the Protestants uphold Scripture as the only ultimate authority, as compared to the Roman Catholic Church maintaining that Holy Tradition has divine authority at a level above Scripture. By agreement between myself and Pfaffenhofen, we will use this thread to set out how Protestants and the RCC represent these positions officially -- 1. or that is, from my side, I will do a series of posts quoting what the bible says about the bible, at times with minimal comment on what the verses mean; 2. from Pfaffenhofen's side, he will set out official statements from the RCC which assert the authority on Holy Tradition, but reliance on Catholic catechisms endorsed by the RCC is also acceptable.

The purpose of the thread is not debate in any way, but merely to set out how the authority of the positions are established and represented, and in contrast to each other. However, minimal debate on peripheral issues may be necessary -- probably on what a bible verse can mean. I think it is proper that the meaning of a bible verse can be questioned, but then, I believe there should just be the two sides presented on what the verse means, without continuing disagreement and debate. It is enough just to know, that the two sides have two ways at looking at a verse. I do not know that such perirpheral issues will arise on the meaning of verses, but it is possible.

We want to be nice, respectful, dignified in posting (no joking or degrading comments). The idea is to just have a statement of the two sides set out authoritatively, and in contrast, and then, to let the readers decide for themselves what each side should mean, without commenting in this thread. I also noted in making the proposal for this thread, that Pfaffenhofen may want to include photos of cathedrals, articles used in worship services, noble clothing (or perhaps, the clergy clothing is called "holy" clothing,) and art work, but he may not wish to take the position that such things are an indication of authority of Holy Tradition. I will also emphasize the "power" that Scripture indicates the Word of God has, as another indication of its authority, and Pfaffenhoffen may wish to do the same on how RCC statements indicates that Holy Tradition has power, (such as, for instance, the bread and wine of communion actually turning into the body and blood of Christ at a mass, or the Pope actually becoming infallible).

If anyone attempts to change the thread into a debate, I think such posts should be considered an acknowledgment that such poster believes the side he supports has been diminished by the thread and rendered to appear false. If these posts come into the thread, they should be ignored, or request should be made to have them removed.

 

[Albion]

What evidence would be required

As I have previously requested--something, anything that would show a doctrine that is not dependent upon the Bible for its definition and which actually has been passed on from the Apostles down to later generations. That's what Tradition is supposed to be.

 

[Standing Up]

As I have previously requested--something, anything that would show a doctrine that is not dependent upon the Bible for its definition and which actually has been passed on from the Apostles down to later generations. That's what Tradition is supposed to be.

Hmm, I doubt any of them define Tradition that way. They all assert that Tradition is apostolic IOW, the ONLY THING we know is apostolic IS scripture.

Their Tradition is always inferred, between the lines, gnostic like.

 

[Montalban]

If you want to test Scripture, go ahead.

I'm not testing scripture, but sola scriptura.

I'm very happy with scripture, use it all the time

 

[Montalban]

No. He wants to test the norma normans - Scripture.

.

Scripture isn't the norms. Sola scriptura is

 

[Montalban]

This is one westerner who does not look on sex as "being dirty". That is a RC thing.

You've never heard of the Puritans, I take it?

 

[Montalban]

Yes, but we all have a copy of the Bible.

Which copy, the one with the fewer books?

 

[Kepha]

Produce the official RC teaching that says that.

Why certainly.

"... We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful".......Pope Pius IX (Ineffabilis)

Orinal sin is passed on through humans. Christ would have received this as well if He had the same flesh of a sinful human. You see, the IC flows nicely with Catholic doctrine, just not your personal fallible doctrines.

It held that God could do a miracle for Mary but not for Jesus.

The real Immaculate Conception is that of Jesus.

So the Virgin Birth of Christ not needing a human father wasn't a Miracle? Ok.

 

[Albion]

Hmm, I doubt any of them define Tradition that way. They all assert that Tradition is apostolic IOW, the ONLY THING we know is apostolic IS scripture.

Yes, they do define it that way; they just don't have any evidence that it is so. They do indeed claim that there are doctrines that are derived from beliefs handed down from the Apostles through the years which are not known by a reading of Scripture. The doctrines that are known to be Apostolic are in the Bible so we don't need an alternate source to find them, but with Tradition, where do any of these doctrines originate?

I'd like to have someone show us one and how we can see that it indeed was handed down from the Apostles to us.

The claim is made all the time that X or Y is Apostolic, but no one seems able to connect such beliefs to the Apostles.

Their Tradition is always inferred, between the lines, gnostic like.

That's right. We agree there.