-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Does Catholicism teach Sola ecclesia?
- Thread starter Hoonbaba
- Start date
- Status
Let me rephrase that. protestants teach 'sola scriptura' (scripture is the only infallible rule of faith). But does catholics teach 'sola ecclesia'? (i.e. is the church the only infallible rule of faith)?
I thought there was something about a 3-legged stool of some sort...
-Jason
I thought there was something about a 3-legged stool of some sort...
-Jason
Upvote
0
Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium.
I'll see if I can find a good article.
I'll see if I can find a good article.
Upvote
0
I'd say 'no,' mostly because of the pejorative connotation which Catholic critics wish to suggest with that term. The implication is that Catholic faith isn't grounded in any objective reality. To the contrary.
If Catholicism teaches sola ecclesia, then the corresponding claim can be made (and more readily) that Protestantism teaches sola conscientia, the conscience alone. It's really not teaching sola scriptura, because Scripture ends up meaning whatever the individual, governed solely by the individual's conscience, concludes it means.
Catholicism, with its collective/historic model, offers the more objective means. And that model conforms better to Scripture (e.g., the council of Jerusalem; Paul's state of the church being the 'pillar and foundation of truth' (1 Tim. 3:15)).
Upvote
0
Reformationist
Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
- Mar 7, 2002
- 14,273
- 465
- 53
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Today at 10:01 AM Hoonbaba said this in Post #5
hmm....sola conscientia....that's an interesting way of looking at sola scriptura
-Jason
It's also incorrect. Tell me Brian, when you read the Scripture and undoubtedly form your own opinion of what the verse means, how is it that you determine that your understanding is accurate? Don't you rely on the interpretation of your elected church officials? How is that different than what Protestants do? No mature Protestant Christian that I've ever met relies solely on his/her own ability to understand. We read, we study, we glean knowledge from other resources such as learned scholars, other Christians, the original Hebrew and Greek text as understood by widely accepted scholars in those languages. Often we study other beliefs to see how they are supported in Scripture.
One more thing, no respected scholar of the Scriptures, be they Protestant or Catholic, ever believed that Sola Scriptura means "just what is written in the Bible is the only Word of God." The written Word of God speaks often of people who were verbally instructed by Christ Himself. We don't discount such teaching just because it wasn't written down and neither did they.
God bless
Upvote
0
Hi Reformationist,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. And seeing how you're not Catholic, I think you might have a different perspective on sola scriptura than do most Catholics. So, I'm curious to know: What exactly is sola scriptura? Even though I'm a protestant, I really don't understand this phrase. I'm confused by the myriads of answers I get from nearly everyone. How exactly is it defined?
In any case, you mentioned the following: "No mature Protestant Christian that I've ever met relies solely on his/her own ability to understand"
A few weeks ago at my church, a presbyterian (PCA, not PCUSA) pastor came to speak and afterwards some of us had a little discussion on things and he mentioned how all we need for interpreting scripture is
1) Bible
2) Holy Spirit to guide you for understanding
Now, I found that really shocking since he was basically saying, "you don't need anything else". Maybe he was actually referring to something else.
It seems that if you look at sola scriptura meaning, "you don't need any other non-biblical source to guide you", then that sounds like a contradiction with most protestants since they would say 'sola scriptura', yet they'd reach for commentaries, Hebrew/Greek Lexicons, etc. So your explanation of sola scriptura shed some new light on this matter.
With all this in mind, how do you define sola scriptura?
-Jason
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. And seeing how you're not Catholic, I think you might have a different perspective on sola scriptura than do most Catholics. So, I'm curious to know: What exactly is sola scriptura? Even though I'm a protestant, I really don't understand this phrase. I'm confused by the myriads of answers I get from nearly everyone. How exactly is it defined?
In any case, you mentioned the following: "No mature Protestant Christian that I've ever met relies solely on his/her own ability to understand"
A few weeks ago at my church, a presbyterian (PCA, not PCUSA) pastor came to speak and afterwards some of us had a little discussion on things and he mentioned how all we need for interpreting scripture is
1) Bible
2) Holy Spirit to guide you for understanding
Now, I found that really shocking since he was basically saying, "you don't need anything else". Maybe he was actually referring to something else.
It seems that if you look at sola scriptura meaning, "you don't need any other non-biblical source to guide you", then that sounds like a contradiction with most protestants since they would say 'sola scriptura', yet they'd reach for commentaries, Hebrew/Greek Lexicons, etc. So your explanation of sola scriptura shed some new light on this matter.
With all this in mind, how do you define sola scriptura?
-Jason
Upvote
0
Reformationist
Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
- Mar 7, 2002
- 14,273
- 465
- 53
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
My pleasure.
Jason, the reformed definition is that "Sola Scriptura incorporates the fact that, as a general pattern, God reveals His Word orally and temporarily through prophets and apostles and then subsequently inscripturates His Word. At all points in this process, God's Word is the supreme norm for Christian thought and practice. Thus, when Protestants speak of "Scriptura" we use it synonymously with such designations as "God's Word" (whether oral or written), a practice readily found in the New Testament (e.g., Rom. 9:17; Gal. 3:8; Matt. 19:4-5; Mk. 7:9-13; Acts 2:16-17; Heb. 1:6-7)."
I hope that helps. Also, for any Catholics who involve themselves in this thread let me assure you that I am not trying to take over the thread and start preaching Protestant doctrine. My post was merely in direct response to BrianInNC's explanation and misunderstanding of the Protestant use of the phrase Sola Scriptura.
God bless
Upvote
0
Really?? That is interesting! I thought the protestant view of Sola Scriptura was literally "only in the Bible."
Can you elaborate, because it sounds like you are saying the same thing that we say about Tradition and Scripture.
Upvote
0
Reformationist
Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
- Mar 7, 2002
- 14,273
- 465
- 53
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Sure but I don't think this is the right forum for it. If you'd like to start a new thread in a more appropriate forum I'd be happy to do my best to explain my understanding of it.
God bless
Upvote
0
Uh...?? heh I'm confused
Wouldn't you mean that God revealed His Word orally and temporarily through prophets and apostles and then subsequently inscripturated His word (i.e. note past tense)?I honestly don't see a problem with that, but I don't believe everything that God said was specifically written down (thus the Oral Tradition, which Orthodox and Catholics hold on to).
Aren't Catholics in agreement with this? I don't see how that statement says anything about sola scriptura. heh maybe I don't understand what you're saying
Unless I'm completely lost or something, I don't see how many of those passages say anything about sola scriptura. Actually I think I don't really understand that definition. Can you clarify? I'm comletely lost LOL!
And thanks for the honest response =)
-Jason
Upvote
0
Jason,
I think this will shed some light on your confusion.
http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH01/05b.html
I think this will shed some light on your confusion.
http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH01/05b.html
Upvote
0
Jason,
To answer you question yes, the Church does believe in sola ecclesia. The three legged stool is what hold her up through all the attacks and persecutions.
This is what the CCC has to say.
80. "'Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.'[DV 9.] Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own 'always, to the close of the age'.[Mt 28:20 .]"
81. "'Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.'[DV 9.]
'And (Holy) Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.'[DV 9.]"
82. "As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, 'does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.'[DV 9.]"
83. "The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.
The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church."
84. "The apostles entrusted the 'Sacred deposit' of the faith (the depositum fidei),[DV 10 # 1; cf. 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:12-14 (Vulg).] contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. 'By adhering to (this heritage) the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practising and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.'[DV 10 # 1; cf. Acts 2:42 (Greek); Pius XII, Apost. Const. Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November 1950: AAS 42 (1950), 756, taken along with the words of St. Cyprian, Epist. 66, 8: CSEL 3/2, 733: 'The Church is the people united to its Priests, the flock adhering to its Shepherd.' Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November 1950: AAS 42 (1950), 756, taken along with the words of St. Cyprian, Epist. 66, 8: CSEL 3/2, 733: 'The Church is the people united to its Priests, the flock adhering to its Shepherd.']"
85. "'The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.'[DV 10 # 2.] This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome."
86. "'Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.'[DV 10 para 2.]"
87. "Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: 'He who hears you, hears me',[Lk 10:16 ; cf. LG 20.] the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms."
88. "The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes in a definitive way truths having a necessary connection with them. "
89. "There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.[Cf.Jn 8:31-32 .] "
90. "The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ.[Cf. Vatican Council I: DS 3016: nexus mysteriorum; LC 25.] 'In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy 234 of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith.'[UR II.]"
/a29.htm
To answer you question yes, the Church does believe in sola ecclesia. The three legged stool is what hold her up through all the attacks and persecutions.
This is what the CCC has to say.
80. "'Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.'[DV 9.] Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own 'always, to the close of the age'.[Mt 28:20 .]"
81. "'Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.'[DV 9.]
'And (Holy) Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.'[DV 9.]"
82. "As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, 'does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.'[DV 9.]"
83. "The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.
The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church."
84. "The apostles entrusted the 'Sacred deposit' of the faith (the depositum fidei),[DV 10 # 1; cf. 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:12-14 (Vulg).] contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. 'By adhering to (this heritage) the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practising and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.'[DV 10 # 1; cf. Acts 2:42 (Greek); Pius XII, Apost. Const. Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November 1950: AAS 42 (1950), 756, taken along with the words of St. Cyprian, Epist. 66, 8: CSEL 3/2, 733: 'The Church is the people united to its Priests, the flock adhering to its Shepherd.' Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November 1950: AAS 42 (1950), 756, taken along with the words of St. Cyprian, Epist. 66, 8: CSEL 3/2, 733: 'The Church is the people united to its Priests, the flock adhering to its Shepherd.']"
85. "'The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.'[DV 10 # 2.] This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome."
86. "'Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.'[DV 10 para 2.]"
87. "Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: 'He who hears you, hears me',[Lk 10:16 ; cf. LG 20.] the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms."
88. "The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes in a definitive way truths having a necessary connection with them. "
89. "There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.[Cf.Jn 8:31-32 .] "
90. "The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ.[Cf. Vatican Council I: DS 3016: nexus mysteriorum; LC 25.] 'In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy 234 of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith.'[UR II.]"
/a29.htm
Upvote
0
Reformationist
Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
- Mar 7, 2002
- 14,273
- 465
- 53
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Today at 03:05 PM Hoonbaba said this in Post #11 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=709069#post709069)
Uh...?? heh I'm confused
Tense is something that we identify with, not God. Yes His Word is complete. I didn't mean to imply that He added to it as time went by.
There is nothing wrong with oral tradition. This is not the right forum to debate the biblical support for oral tradition, at least not by me. I will say that the issue that Protestants take with the Catholic church's view on oral tradition is that they view it as equal to Scripture.
To my knowledge Catholics do not view Scripture as "THE" supreme norm but rather view their oral traditions as equal to Scripture.
I don't see how that statement says anything about sola scriptura. heh maybe I don't understand what you're saying
The point I was making was that in the Bible the Apostles and prophets directed people to the Word of God, not to tradition, of which there were plenty at the time.
Sure, but not here.
No problem. And to my Catholic brethren I apologize if it seemed I was debating Sola Scriptura from a Protestant viewpoint in the OBOB forum.
God bless
Upvote
0
Hi Reformationist,
Thanks for addressing the questions. I guess we should take this conversation elsewhere. Ultimately though, I suspect that once I start a new thread in the debate forum, it seems as if many will jump in and 'attack' each other's position, which is why I wouldn't prefer the debate forum. Maybe I'll post through PM....but then again, maybe others can contribute some interesting thoughts into the discussion.
But I'll have to get to that another time. I'm a bit busy tonight =)
God bless!
-Jason
Thanks for addressing the questions. I guess we should take this conversation elsewhere. Ultimately though, I suspect that once I start a new thread in the debate forum, it seems as if many will jump in and 'attack' each other's position, which is why I wouldn't prefer the debate forum. Maybe I'll post through PM....but then again, maybe others can contribute some interesting thoughts into the discussion.
But I'll have to get to that another time. I'm a bit busy tonight =)
God bless!
-Jason
Upvote
0
uh...ignore that
I posted a thread on sola scriptura here:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38544
God bless!
-Jason
Upvote
0
Reformationist
Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
- Mar 7, 2002
- 14,273
- 465
- 53
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Today at 08:17 PM Hoonbaba said this in Post #16 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=709681#post709681)
uh...ignore that
I posted a thread on sola scriptura here:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38544
God bless!
-Jason
Cool, I'll take a look later. I also want to read the info in the link that chelcb provided in that thread.
God bless,
Don
Upvote
0
My point was that sola ecclesia and sola conscientia are corresponding, distorting comparables.
As to the interpretation of a particular verse, I suppose my methodology is quite similar, as the Catholic Church rarely has attempted to give definitive meaning to particular verses. However, as to the teaching of doctrine (whole concepts, not just singular verses) my methodology is qualitatively different, because I ascribe true teaching authority to those officials and give those teachings presumptive, and at times preclusive, authority.
And those things are certainly preferred to simple readings of the texts alone. However, in the end it strikes me, the Protestant (particularly those of the more fundamentalist varieties) weighs these resources within his/her own conscience and arrives at a conclusion, believing the Holy Spirit guides him/her to the (infallible, or nearly) truth. That others (or indeed most others) hold to a different position is subordinated to the dictates of personal conscience. The result is the factionalism and sectarianism that Catholics are often wont to decry within the Protestant model.
Very true. Though many of my discussions are with those, not quite of the scholarly ilk, who stridently assert that if it isn't in Scripture (and at a level of explicitness that meets their expectation), then it can't be taught or believed (and, in some cases, that acceptance of things things not explicit in the Scriptural texts calls one's very salvation into question). "Sola" Scriptura seems to mean just what the phrase implies.
Peace,
Brian
Upvote
0
Brian,
You said: "and, in some cases, that acceptance of things things not explicit in the Scriptural texts calls one's very salvation into question"
What did you mean by that? Can you elaborate?
-Jason
You said: "and, in some cases, that acceptance of things things not explicit in the Scriptural texts calls one's very salvation into question"
What did you mean by that? Can you elaborate?
-Jason
Upvote
0
I was making a parenthetical comment about a form of fundamentalist thinking, not a reply to a specific post. There are always variants, of course, thought the basic mental process seems to run something like this:
1. If I profess belief in things not explicit in Scripture, then I am (by definition) relying on the "traditions of men."
2. Since I am relying on "traditions of men," then I am not relying solely on the saving power of Jesus Christ through His Word.
3. Since I am not relying solely on the saving power of Jesus Christ through His Word, then it is questionable that my faith (though "nominally" Christian through acceptance of basic truths, Trinity, etc.) is really a "saving faith," as opposed some watered-down/ritualized/nominal/mere-intellectual faith.
That strikes me as how it goes, at any rate. Sola Scriptura becomes not just an epistemological principle, but a qualitative test of faith itself.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
