A troubling confession - Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!

[ozso]

There is scripture for all of these, yet you act as if there isn't and as if one NEEDS scripture to believe something.

Nope you've got it all wrong. I'm saying much of Catholocism is founded on what the apostles wrote as opposed to being founded by church tradition. Put another way, while the RCC poo-poos sola scriptura, a lot of Catholocism is founded solely on scripture alone.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Nope you've got it all wrong. I'm saying much of Catholocism is founded on what the apostles wrote as opposed to being founded by church tradition. Put another way, while the RCC poo-poos sola scriptura, a lot of Catholocism is founded solely on scripture alone.

Catholics teach the proper acceptance and reverence for the holy scriptures. This is covered very well in a document called Dei Verbum.

 

[fhansen]

Most Protestants (who weren't Catholics before) who studied history remained Protestant. It would be one thing if the Papacy and the Vatican had a perfect interpretation of scripture and had stuck to it, but that's not the case. Instead the RCC ended up with their updated changing version of Christianity that in some cases eschewed scripture in favor of catechisms. Just as the Jews ended up favoring the Talmud they created. So the problem of Sola Scriptura for Catholicism is that it doesn't allow for the extrabiblical dictates the RCC came up with over the centuries. The RCC like most others decided to do it their way. Otherwise the RCC would be the same now as the early church up to the 4th century, but it clearly isn't. The RCC morphed into something different. The RCC seems to be currently morphing into accepting and promoting LGBTQQIP2SAA+ and transgenderism. Lots of Catholics and apparently the Pope is onboard with that. There's just too much wrong with the RCC and Catholicism past and present to make the claim of being the one and only true infallible church. Really the Eastern Orthodox Church is closer to that than the Roman Catholic Church.

Protestantism already accepted contraception long ago, with some accepting abortion and performing gay marriage more recently. The RCC, almost uniquely, opposes all of that while striving to accept all humans as we’re all sinners and there is no Catholic teaching anywhere promoting LGBTQQIP2SAA+ and transgenderism. Again, it matters not what many Catholics including even the pope are on board with-Catholic doctrine is the key, and that hasn’t changed. That’s what the gift of infallibility is all about. Some popes have personally believed in heretical views at times, but no teachings were changed.

If you wish to study historical teachings of Christianity you’ll need to immerse yourself objectively in the early fathers. There you’ll find an almost distinctly non-Protestant flavor to the basics: liturgy, church structure and hierarchy, baptismal regeneration, justification, the Eucharist, the real presence, the sacraments, Mary, the list goes on. The eastern and western ancient churches to this day happen to be virtually identical on these matters for all real and practical purposes even after centuries of isolation, due to the teachings/Tradition received at the beginning, while there is no consistent universal Protestant position on any of it, being all over the board on some while rejecting others outright. This is because Protestantism is mostly based on individual interpretation of the Bible, alone, centuries after the revelation, itself, took place.

 

[fhansen]

Nope you've got it all wrong. I'm saying much of Catholocism is founded on what the apostles wrote as opposed to being founded by church tradition. Put another way, while the RCC poo-poos sola scriptura, a lot of Catholocism is founded solely on scripture alone.

Where do you get that? The church necessarily often employs Scripture in apologetics and teachings in order to support positions because 1) Scripture is the only source many of her detractors will accept, and 2) Tradition, by definition, is unwritten. But the church received and proclaimed the gospel before a word of the New Testament was written and long before it was canonized. Tradition, as often as not, informs and supports Scriptural positions, the two, Scripture and Tradition, being mutually complementary.

 

[Strong in Him]

And the RCC unashamedly claims that the authority to correctly interpret God’s Word, again, both written and unwritten, is the role she was given to play.

"She" wasn't.
It is the Holy Spirit who interprets, and applies, God's word to us. He inspired it to be written, he knows the mind, and will, of God and he can do that.

 

[fhansen]

"She" wasn't.
It is the Holy Spirit who interprets, and applies, God's word to us. He inspired it to be written, he knows the mind, and will, of God and he can do that.

Of course He can. He can guarantee that individuals will certainly know the truth when they hear it, whether through the guidance of the church or without it. He can do whatever He wants. I’m only saying that, without the historical teachings of the church and the guidance He’s given “her” you’ll have a difficult time. That’s how He’s set it up. And that’s why “Spirit-led”, Bible only Christians disagree all the time on important points, as we see right here on these very forums.

 

[Strong in Him]

Of course He can. He can guarantee that individuals will certainly know the truth when they hear it, whether through the guidance of the church or without it. He can do whatever He wants. I’m only saying that, without the historical teachings of the church and the guidance He’s given “her” you’ll have a difficult time.

If you're talking about commentaries and theological resources; yes, I agree.
If you're talking about the Catholic church; no. I'm not a catholic, nor do I study your teachings.

 

[fhansen]

If you're talking about commentaries and theological resources; yes, I agree.
If you're talking about the Catholic church; no. I'm not a catholic, nor do I study your teachings.

Yes, I did the same, at least until I did begin to study those teachings and the history behind them. Prior to that I was quite anti-Catholic. And the amount of commentaries and theological resources from the last 2000 years of Christian thought in the church are astoundingly huge. Many Protestants have contributed valuable material along those lines as well.

For myself, I've always been willing to hear the other side, rather than just going with the popular opinion. That way I know for myself. I even gave JWs a chance while already disliking what I knew of their theology, seeing how they had a Christian kind of brotherhood and were quite serious about their faith. But when I selected and studied three of the claims that distinguished them, they all soon fell apart on their own. I did the same with many religions and belief-systems. I even read "Jesus Seminar" material, but mainly in that case so I could know, dismiss, and intelligently oppose it. Having said that I certainly have no monopoly on truth but have come to believe that much anti-Catholic thinking has its roots in ignorance of its teachings and the reasons behind them.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes, I did the same, at least until I did begin to study those teachings and the history behind them. Prior to that I was quite anti-Catholic. And the amount of commentaries and theological resources from the last 2000 years of Christian thought in the church are astoundingly huge. Many Protestants have contributed valuable material along those lines as well.

I'm not anti Catholic; I just don't go to a Catholic church or read/study your teachings.

 

[fhansen]

I'm not anti Catholic; I just don't go to a Catholic church or read/study your teachings.

And I'm only saying that I think we'd all benefit if we did, along with the ECFs.

 

[fhansen]

Most Protestants (who weren't Catholics before) who studied history remained Protestant.

I'd submit that anyone who truly and objectively studied the early fathers to much of any serious degree would have a very difficult time not turning to the EO or RCC.

 

[concretecamper]

I'm saying much of Catholocism is founded on what the apostles wrote as opposed to being founded by church tradition

This is like say, this stick isn't 6", it is half a foot.

 

[Strong in Him]

And I'm only saying that I think we'd all benefit if we did, along with the ECFs.

Oh you're very welcome to say that, but it's not going to happen - not with me, anyway.

 

[fhansen]

Oh you're very welcome to say that, but it's not going to happen - not with me, anyway.

Yes, and we're all welcome to say that as well. Most do in fact, assuming they already know.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes, and we're all welcome to say that as well. Most do in fact, assuming they already know.

Already know what?

 

[fhansen]

Already know what?

Christian truth accurately and fully.

 

[ozso]

I'd submit that anyone who truly and objectively studied the early fathers to much of any serious degree would have a very difficult time not turning to the EO or RCC.

It's pretty easy to put that to the test by looking up experts in church history and patristics.

 

[ozso]

Where do you get that? The church necessarily often employs Scripture in apologetics and teachings in order to support positions because 1) Scripture is the only source many of her detractors will accept, and 2) Tradition, by definition, is unwritten. But the church received and proclaimed the gospel before a word of the New Testament was written and long before it was canonized. Tradition, as often as not, informs and supports Scriptural positions, the two, Scripture and Tradition, being mutually complementary.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, But I hear a lot of 'you protestants always going by the book tisk tisk". But then I observe catholicism going by the book as much as possible. Going by the book only seems to be a problem when it comes to extrabiblical tradition.

 

[ozso]

Of course He can. He can guarantee that individuals will certainly know the truth when they hear it, whether through the guidance of the church or without it. He can do whatever He wants. I’m only saying that, without the historical teachings of the church and the guidance He’s given “her” you’ll have a difficult time. That’s how He’s set it up. And that’s why “Spirit-led”, Bible only Christians disagree all the time on important points, as we see right here on these very forums.

And Catholics don't have disagreements among themselves? Isn't this thread about how to interpret CCC 846-47, and doesn't it contain differing views from Catholics?

 

[fhansen]

And Catholics don't have disagreements among themselves? Isn't this thread about how to interpret CCC 846-47, and doesn't it contain differing views from Catholics?

Again, the opinions of individual Catholics have no bearing on Catholic teachings; they either agree or disagree with Catholicism. As far as CCC 846-847 goes, 846 contains a truth-there's no salvation outside the church. There would be no Christianity if not for the church, let alone no new testament or unified body of beliefs, or cloud of witnesses down through the centuries. 847 also contains a truth, that culpability is always directly tied to knowledge. The more we know, the more we're held accountable for that knowledge.