Mary and Joseph

[Benedicta00]

COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D.
The Council of Toulouse, which met in November of 1229, about the time of the crusade against the Albigensians, set up a special ecclesiastical tribunal, or court, known as the Inquisition (Lat. inquisitio, an inquiry), to search out and try heretics. Twenty of the forty-five articles decreed by the Council dealt with heretics and heresy. It ruled in part:

Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.​

the Church was discouraging reading the bible becuase any insane error can be supported with scripture.

I know this seems hash in light of now becuase since Luther that is what everyone is able to do, read the bible for themselves and have it support want ever they claim.

So I'm not understanding... this is the very point I have been making.

Any one can pick up a bible read it for themselves and make it sing like a canary supporting their error. The last 500 hundred years have proven this.

Exactly why sola scriptura is a false doctrine and o one was give any such authority form God to read it o theor own authority and interpret as they please.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Any one can pick up a bible read it for themselves and make it sing like a canary supporting their error. The last 500 hundred years have proven this.

Can a teacher (person, congregation, denomination) pick up a Bible and/or it's own chosen tradition which it declares to be equal in authority to God's Holy Word and self declare that it alone is the sole authority, the sole infallible interpreter and the sole infallible arbiter? Why would that be infallible for one teacher and so fallible for another? Or maybe it's always infallible or always bad? Or maybe it's bad for everyone else but infallible for self if self so self declares?

Exactly why sola scriptura is a false doctrine and o one was give any such authority form God to read it o theor own authority and interpret as they please.

1. Sola Scriptura isn't a doctrine, it's an epistemological tool for the process of norming.

2. Sola Scriptura does NOT say that a teacher is its own infallible interpreter and own infallible arbiter - that's commonly known as Sola Ecclesia.



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[HisKid1973]

Why do you call sola spriptura a doctrine? What is the center of the scriptures..The gospel message.. The whole ministry of the Gideon bible is to share that gospel message..Do you deny someone could find Christ through the reading of scriptures..It is the same message Peter spoke and three thousand were added to the church in one day..It was like the original Billy Graham crusade...

CJ you amaze me with the things you know for someone so young..How long were you in the CC before you got out? Did you know that they think you are actually leaving Christ when you leave the CC?

pax..Kim

 

[Uphill Battle]

the Church was discouraging reading the bible becuase any insane error can be supported with scripture.

I know this seems hash in light of now becuase since Luther that is what everyone is able to do, read the bible for themselves and have it support want ever they claim.

So I'm not understanding... this is the very point I have been making.

Any one can pick up a bible read it for themselves and make it sing like a canary supporting their error. The last 500 hundred years have proven this.

Exactly why sola scriptura is a false doctrine and o one was give any such authority form God to read it o theor own authority and interpret as they please.

1,395,398th time.... SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT A DOCTRINE.

and you contradicted yourself. You called it slander that the RCC withheld scriptures from the laity, then turn around and say they did, but their reasoning was kosher.

pick a side to argue.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CJ you amaze me with the things you know for someone so young..

I'm just a beginning student...
But I take my soul very seriously and all things spiritual are of great concern and interest. And I suppose my parents had a lot to do with it - my father is a pastor and my mother the child of one.

How long were you in the CC before you got out?

A bit less than 5 years, but I need to explain that. I was never a registered member there, but always a guest. When I was about 12 or so, my best buddy from Little League was very Catholic. His parents were both cradle Catholics and products of Catholic schools, k-college (in fact they meet in grad school in a Catholic university). The whole family is very Catholic and very involved. Anyway, their family rule was the same as mine: Saturday sleepovers mean Sunday church - so that was my first time in a Catholic Church. It was very different than my rather liberal mainline Protestant church, but I found the spirituality very appealing and that began almost weekly Mass, soon involvement in their awesome youth group (seriously, the best I"ve ever heard of) and a Bible study associated with that group. And, OF COURSE, LOTS of conversations and questions of Mark, his parents, good friends of theirs who teach Catholicism, etc. There was a time when I seriously considered joining the Catholic Church. But I was always a respectful guest there. Actually, there were a number of us Protestants in the youth group - although the others there for fun, I was there for learning. I LOVE the CC and overwhelmingly agree with it - my time there certainly had a HUGE impact on my life and relationship with Christ, for which I will always be very thankful. BTW, that first sleepover at Mark's house was also my first expose to the Rosery (they do it as a family in the evening), they involved me and I thought it was pretty cool.



Sorry for the diversion, mods...



May God richly bless you and yours in Christ our Suffering Servant in this holy season of Lent.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[PookySmiley]

Interesting stuff here from a Non Catholic site.

We can all sling mud and spin and distort.

The Protestant Reformers Were Frauds




Point is, he who is with out sin may throw the first stone. I don't kow how you all don't feel convicted for the stones you throw at the Catholic Church.

First and foremost, Luther was a Catholic priest. Second I threw no stones, I quoted what I knew to be true and was called a liar. Stating a fact is hardly in the same league as trying to stone a prostitute.

 

[Gwenyfur]

You will remember the rules you agreed to...
Namely:

2.1 No Flaming

You will not "flame" other members or groups of members. Flaming includes, but is not limited to:
- Ridiculing, insulting, or demeaning another member or group of members;
- Ridiculing another member's beliefs;
- Ridiculing public figures important to another's religious beliefs;
- Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian;
- Calling or describing other people, groups, belief-systems, or ideas as heresy or a cult (or derivatives of these words). Instead of using these emotionally charged words, please state "X is wrong because of Y" rather than using these words in polemical discussion;
- Asking loaded questions that directly cause flames in response;
- Using sarcasm to attempt any of the above; and
- Threats of any sort, including advocating or supporting physical or mental harm against another living creature (this creature clause does not apply to political discussions of military action, hunting/fishing discussions nor ethical discussions of capital punishment).

In other words:

Post with respect and courtesy!

 

[ScottBot]

1,395,398th time.... SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT A DOCTRINE.

and you contradicted yourself. You called it slander that the RCC withheld scriptures from the laity, then turn around and say they did, but their reasoning was kosher.

pick a side to argue.

Then I guess sola fide, sola gracia, sola gloria Deo, and sola Christus are just nice things to believe, not doctrines.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Then I guess sola fide, sola gracia, sola gloria Deo, and sola Christus are just nice things to believe, not doctrines.

a bit snide, don't you think?

Sola Scriptura has been explained ad nauseum.

It is not a doctrine, no matter how it's misrepresented by RCC and EO.

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

Maybe that Wycliffe was a heretic so he was put to death but the government, was only tried by the Church.

Which wasn't a big deal since in those days hersey was seen as a crime punishable by death.

The reformers burned ppl too, so the Church is not the lone ranger here.

And JP2 made a universal apology for any part the Church had in any of those cases. They weren't called the Dark Ages for nothing, Melody.

DON'T take your anger out on me that the truth is coming out how you can't read the Bible for yourself. I am SO sorry to hear that. I am floored...SO if you don't read it for yourself..HOW the heck do you know you aren't being led astray?? YOU would have NO clue...

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

a bit snide, don't you think?

Sola Scriptura has been explained ad nauseum.

It is not a doctrine, no matter how it's misrepresented by RCC and EO.

Hey, we didn't even get a chance to weigh in on this before accused of "misrepresenting."

So here it is: sola scriptura is PART OF a doctrine, the doctrine being rejection of traditional ecclesiastical authority. The rationale behind the rejection of same was ecclesiastical abuses and alleged ecclesiastical abuses on the part of Rome. The construction of the Protestant ethos centered around the notion that the bible was the sole rule of faith- at least, that was the rationale. In practice, there are now dozens of ecclesiastical authorities, many much more oppressive and bureaucratic than Rome ever was.

It's all an outgrowth of Western Rationalism.

 

[sunlover1]

the Church was discouraging reading the bible becuase any insane error can be supported with scripture.

So you think we shouldn't be able to read
the Bible?

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

So you think we shouldn't be able to read
the Bible?

that is what I am getting, and that is very disturbing. SO against God's written word...oh for get it...appalling..

 

[Uphill Battle]

Hey, we didn't even get a chance to weigh in on this before accused of "misrepresenting."

So here it is: sola scriptura is PART OF a doctrine, the doctrine being rejection of traditional ecclesiastical authority. The rationale behind the rejection of same was ecclesiastical abuses and alleged ecclesiastical abuses on the part of Rome. The construction of the Protestant ethos centered around the notion that the bible was the sole rule of faith- at least, that was the rationale. In practice, there are now dozens of ecclesiastical authorities, many much more oppressive and bureaucratic than Rome ever was.

It's all an outgrowth of Western Rationalism.

fair enough, should have given a chance first.

however, rejecting the all encompassing self claimed authority of a church is hardly a doctrinal statement either!

 

[ScottBot]

a bit snide, don't you think?

Sola Scriptura has been explained ad nauseum.

It is not a doctrine, no matter how it's misrepresented by RCC and EO.

Its one of the five solas upon which the entire Reformation was built. Equivocation is entirely appropriate.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Its one of the five solas upon which the entire Reformation was built. Equivocation is entirely appropriate.

and, entirely wrong, but hey, do as you wish.

It challenges RCC authority, so no doubt that's why it's on your short list.

 

[ScottBot]

So you think we shouldn't be able to read
the Bible?

The Church NEVER discouraged reading the bible. It forbade OWNING a private copy without CHurch approval. Churches at the time were always open. If you wanted to read the bible, there was always one available at Church. This was done to prevent thing like what happened at Albi from happening.

 

[ScottBot]

and, entirely wrong, but hey, do as you wish.

It challenges RCC authority, so no doubt that's why it's on your short list.

It challenges Orthodox teaching authority as well, so they have just as big a dog in this fight.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

fair enough, should have given a chance first.

however, rejecting the all encompassing self claimed authority of a church is hardly a doctrinal statement either!

Correct. But replacing it with the all-encompassing self-claimed authority of the individual results in numerous, multiplied doctrines. This is why the earlier stages of the Reformation were more functional than the splintered non-denominational business that's going on now. That is to say, the Lutherans and Anglicans had the acuity to discern that tradition and interpretation go hand-in-hand...and the rejection of patristic theology is a foolish gambit.

Sadly, these two groups have also forgotten their patristic roots, and are now embracing all manner of non-biblical, and in some cases, immoral doctrine.

Yes, clinging fast to the traditions received is good doctrine. Weighing such against the scripture is right and good and correct, but it is the domain of the ekklesia in synaxis, not the province of an individual, his bible, and his millieu.

This is why the term 'sola scriptura' is so deceptive, and quite frankly, useless. Speaking of scripture as canon is quie sufficient.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

It challenges Orthodox teaching authority as well, so they have just as big a dog in this fight.

The only time that Protestant ethos, doctrine, and praxis is a problem for us is the following two scenarios:
1. They come into Orthodox lands to convert us lost Pagans to their enlightened form of worship: ie, sheep-stealing. For a classic example of this, the SBC "mission" at Athens (olympics)
2. When they back the Zionists in their oppression of our Arab Christian brothers, and send Protestant bombs raining down upon our Serbian Christian brothers, ostensibly to protect those helpless and helpless Albanians (who fought against America in every war since 1900, just as Serbia fought on the side of America in every war since 1900), but in reality it was to secure our strategic interests in the region.

After all, those Serbs are just swarthy Eastern European Catholics with beards, they're not good WASPs.

30,000 Serbian civilians died in Clinton's NATO 'rescue operation.'
30,000 Iraqis die at GW Bush's campaign, and he is (rightly) villainized;
30,000 Serbians die in Clinton's war, and he is lionized.
Either way, Good southern Protestant boys sure like to drop dem bombs.
But I digress.
Sorry, back to our progam.