Protestant Doctrine

[ETide]

Can you show me a "break" in our apostolic succession?

The scriptures speak of the apostles as those who had seen the LORD after His resurrection and who were with Him during His earthly ministry.. ie, this was one of the factors in selecting Matthias to replace Judas, who had betrayed the Lord..

In Eph 2, Paul (the apostle to the Gentiles) speaks of the church of God being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone..

The cornerstone is the one stone which all the others are keyed to, or aligned to.. AND a foundation (after it is built) becomes hidden, or unseen..

We're given a visual image of the church in the Revelation, the bride of Christ.. and there are twelve foundations in the vision.. not many.. ie, not a succession, but twelve, and they have the names of the apostles written on them..

Again, the apostles were eye witnesses to the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.. and therefore there are not any apostles today.. they're the foundation for this glorious building that the Lord Himself inhabits through the spirit..

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Some of MY thoughts...

There are no Pagans in the Christian Catacombs just as there are no Pagans Or Christians in the Jewish Catacombs of Rome.

With all due respect, this thing with the catacombs is a point I find very hard to understand. While such might give some insights into what common Christian persons thought at the time, I fail to understand how such was clearly inspired by the Holy Spirit, infallible, authoritative, apostolic and normative. It would be similar to someone listening in on a converstation on the baseball team of a Catholic univerisity and assuming that all being said is the norma normans for theology, or going into a Christian bookstore and assuming that every word in every book is Canonical equal to Holy Scripture. I just find no reason to believe that EVERY Christian prior to some unstated year were inspired by God in all their graffiti and that God preserved such to serve as the norma normans for the world's 2,000,000,000 Christians. Rather, especially in light of the general populace that Jesus spoke to and Paul wrote to, the masses could well be wrong - not divienly inspired, infallible, apostolic, first century and Authoritative. But I suspect we just disagree with that.

Without the Fathers that came after the Apostles Protestant Schoff who has studied historical Christianity all his life says--

Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff, in his History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity (A.D. 311-600), Chapter IX, section 118:

The early Church fathers steered this young church through turbulent cultural and mythological currents of the world around them. Their writings provided guidance and assurance to early Christians whose faith was not only doctrinally challenged, since copies of Scripture were rare and costly, but who often suffered persecution and even martyrdom. Contemporary believers will find in these records a fascinating glimpse of the first centuries following the death and resurrection of Christ, and will be given rich insight into the growth and history of the Christian Church.
They represent primary evidences of the Canon and the credibility of the New Testament. Written before the Canon was established, the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers offers itself as a means to defend the Christian faith, to record the martyrdom of the early Christian church body, and to stand as monuments to the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So according to Protestant Schoff without the later Fathers you could not defend the Christian faith nor would you have a credible New testament. Without primary evidence you would not even know of a New Testament.

1. As a Protestant, I have no real problem with this quote. I hold the ECF in esteem and express gratitude to God for them, and not only them, but for all the great men and women throughout the 2,000 year history of our religion who have, by word and deed, blessed His church.


2. Protestants are not apt to subject the written Word of God to the words of men - even great men, even the men who are the leaders of our congregations. We may celebrate their gifts and use their quotes generously in hermemeutics, but we don't consider ANY of their writings to be equal to or above the written Word of God so that God is subject to them rather than they subject to God. We worship one Lord and He is God. That's the point of dispute. Are the human teachers we admire under God and His written Word - accountable to Him and it, or is God and His written Word subject to the men we admire and agree with? Without a doubt, both Catholics and Protestants embrace both Scripture and Tradition - the point of disagreement is not the great value of each but which is subject to which.



MY thoughts...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[Lynn73]

Just curious - Are you Church of Christ? I have a friend who was Church of Christ (she is now Catholic) and she said that they believed that they were the true Church and that Catholics were going to Hell along with many other beliefs that differ greatly with mine...I was just curious if this is the case for all members of the Church of Christ denom or if it is just some that are misguided?

The name of my church is Second Church of Christ. We aren't part of any denomination, we're independent , answerable only to God and His word. No, we don't believe we're the only true church, we believe all true Christians make up Christ's church, including the Christians in the church down the road that has a different name on the door.

BTW, I would not count the websites that you cited to be worth much as their intent is to attack the Catholic Church with their fallacies on what we believe.

I find this to be the typical Catholic response to any website that doesn't present their religion in a pure white light but instead examines it's teachings in the light of Scripture. Please, not every non-Catholic is ignorant of what you believe (after all, haven't you told us over and over what you believe?) Especially those former Catholics who spent years in your church being taught it's doctrines. That incluces ex priests who spent 20, 30, and 40 years in your church. You can't convince me they don't know what Catholics believe. This is another typical Catholic response.

 

[ksen]

Can you show me a "break" in our apostolic succession?

There are plenty of competing lists of Popes out there. I'm not sure producing any will actually give you pause though.

and yes, there are thousand of protestant denominations, each claiming that they are based solely on the Bible yet all of their interpretations are different.

Hmm, so you expect Protestants to stop mischaracterizing indulgences and the like after you set them straight, but will continue to wilfully spread incorrect talking points after you've been told they aren't true?

Would this be enough to label you as an Anti-Protestant? The other behavior is enough for you to label someone as being Anti-Catholic.

 

[xapis]

Carm is a virulently anti-Catholic Site. Whats more the link does not address, much less answer, the questions above. Can you address these issues? Thank you for your help in illuminating these areas.

Yours in Christ

The Bible is good for doctrine. We agree on that.

Does it say within itself that it is sufficient to function as the sole rule of faith for Christians? I believe it does.

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." — 2 Tim. 3:15

The Scriptures ARE ABLE to make wise unto salvation through faith in Christ. That's a good start, eh? In fact, we could technically end it there because salvation through faith in Jesus IS the Gospel!

But let's continue anyway, shall we?

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" — 2 Tim. 3:16

ALL Scripture is God-breathed. There's no question about the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. It is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness... that's good... now here's the kicker...

"That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." — 2 Tim. 3:17

Notice, if you will, there's a colon at the end of v. 16. That tells us the sentence isn't over. The thought continues into v. 17 and that's where it is completed. It says "that the man of God may be perfect". The Greek word for "perfect" is ἄρτιος (transliterated artios) and it means complete. That's followed by "throughly furnished unto all good works." The phrase "throughly furnished" is the translation of the Greek verb, ἐξαρτίζω (transliterated exartizo), which has its root in artios and means "to complete" or "to finish". All that is needed to "perfect" the man of God is contained within the Holy Scriptures!

So, in these three verses, we learn that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. We learn that they're given by inspiration of God and are good for doctrine. And we learn that they are able to completely furnish the man of God unto ALL good works.

Paul's teaching that the Scriptures are able to make man wise unto salvation and to perfectly equip man to a subsequent life of good works infers that no other "rule of faith" is necessary. Therefore, we must conclude that the Scriptures are indeed sufficient. Adding extra-biblical doctrines would be adding unnecessary burden to the lives of all Christians and would be contrary to God's perfect plan and purpose.

Shalom.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Some of MY views...

So you agree with Luther here.
Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.-Martin Luther

But you disagree with him here .
Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them."
Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon), page 265, paragraph 28, 1522.

Luther remarked several years later:

"We concede -- as we must -- that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God's word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?"
Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER'S WORKS,
St. Louis, Mo., Concordia, 1961, 304

1. It's helpful to remember that Protestants do not share the same epistemology as do Catholics, and do not place the words of men (even admired ones) above or equal to the written Word of God. Luther is often held in esteem among Protestants, but he is NOT considered to be verbally inspired by God so that Luther's words trump God's Word. Luther is seen as a student of the Bible, nothing more. Not verbally inspired, not infallible, not authoritative. He said some wise things and some stupid (even offensive) things. Protestants are apt to subject what Luther said to Holy Scripture - and he himself insisted we do. While I totally understand WHY Catholics quote from what THEY might view as "Protestant Church Fathers" IMO Catholics assume that their view of such is the Protestant view of such, and this is, IMO, is great error and continues misunderstandings among us.


2. As is common, quotes (often just snippets) are offered to support WHATEVER point the author is making. I find it revealing that Catholics quote form Luther (and hundreds of others) to make whatever point is desired by the Catholic at the time. I don't diss anyone for that, students often do such, it's a common practice - but not always an honest one. I'm NO Luther scholar, but he was clearly a complex man whose views evolved, and not infrequently held different views in tension - not the logical systemmatian of some of the other Reformers. I also see him as a conservative reformer, in many ways closer to the Catholic denomination than many Catholics realize after 500 years of anti-Luther teachings by the Church. But all that is moot. Lutherans see Luther as a fallible student of the Bible - and nothing more. They consider themselves the same. Accountable, all.



MY view...


Pax.


- Josiah



.

 

[Look Homeward Anglican]

The trouble with Protestant doctrine is that it stems from a divergence with Catholic doctrine. Protestant churches can be traced historically to some sound doctrine they decided they disagreed with -- which becomes the moment of their establishment.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think you have a misunderstanding of Protestant doctrine. To say that folks just proclaimed that "the Holy Spirit told me this" and doctrine was created is treating our doctrine with disrespect. Many of our church fathers spent a considerable amount of time in prayer and in deep study of God's Word and that is how our doctrine was formed. Please try to understand our doctrine without preconceived ideas or misunderstandings.

Some of MY thoughts...


Protestants embrace accountability - the whole point of Sola Scriptura. They consider themselves, their teachers and their denominations to be accountable - UNDER God, not equal or above Him and His written Word. They consider their words accountable to God's written Word - not the other way around. The embrace of private interpretation - so central to Catholicism - is rejected. Protestants are apt to not claim "we were given some secret dogmas which God kept out of His written Word and gave to us instead, and we'll tell you these dogmas when we want to, and whatever we say is True because we tell you it is, and whatever we say is True is infallible and unaccountable because we say it is." Protestants reject this principle of epistemology.


MY view...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[Redwolf]

I read a good portion of your website on Catholocism and am not surprised that it has distorted what Catholics believe to fit the preconceived notion of what Catholics believe.

This article aptly describes what Catholics believe.

http://mbrem.com/bible/traditn.htm

All pre-understanding, however, brings dangers with it. As regards Catholic exegesis, the risk is that of attributing to biblical texts a meaning which they do not contain but which is the product of a later development within the tradition. The exegete must beware of such a danger.(26)
​

No hint of criticism is made of the fact that Sacred Tradition requires belief in dogma which is not contained in Sacred Scripture. But there is present here a hint that exegetes in the past (and still today) may read the New Testament as though it had been written in the light of the Tradition, and thus distort the teaching of Sacred Scripture (and by implication perhaps also the function of the Tradition). Implicit in this is the recognition of the substance-gap between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

------

Roman Catholic scholars such as Professor Fitzmyer have been given the freedom to explore what Scripture teaches. They discover themselves looking over their shoulders at the Roman Catholic traditionalists who do not hide their anxiety that such open distancing between Scripture and Tradition will be the downfall of the Church. Consequently their characteristic refrain is that the difference between the content of Scripture and the content of the Tradition does not involve contradiction but only development. What becomes clearer than ever, however, is that the pririciple of sola Scriptura remains a watershed. As Cardinal Ratzinger as much as admitted in his reaction to Geiselmann, there are major Roman doctrines which are simply not found in the Scriptures. In this sense Scripture alone cannot be regarded as sufficient for the life of the Church.
But we must go further. There are important teachings in the Tradition which are not only additional to, but different from and contradictory to, the teaching of Sacred Scripture. These include the very doctrines which were the centerpiece of the Reformation struggle: the nature of justification; the importance of the principle of sola fide; the number of the sacraments; the sufficiency of the work of Christ, the effect of baptism, the presence of Christ at the Supper, the priesthood of all believers, the celibacy of the priesthood, the character and role of Mary, and much else. The more that Scripture is exegeted on its own terms the more it will become clear that in these areas Sacred Tradition does not merely add to Sacred Scripture, it contradicts it. And if it does, can it any longer be "sacred"?


Please enjoy!

 

[Redwolf]

Just curious - Are you Church of Christ? I have a friend who was Church of Christ (she is now Catholic) and she said that they believed that they were the true Church and that Catholics were going to Hell along with many other beliefs that differ greatly with mine...I was just curious if this is the case for all members of the Church of Christ denom or if it is just some that are misguided?

BTW, I would not count the websites that you cited to be worth much as their intent is to attack the Catholic Church with their fallacies on what we believe.

http://mbrem.com/bible/traditn.htm

Roman Catholic scholars such as Professor Fitzmyer have been given the freedom to explore what Scripture teaches. They discover themselves looking over their shoulders at the Roman Catholic traditionalists who do not hide their anxiety that such open distancing between Scripture and Tradition will be the downfall of the Church. Consequently their characteristic refrain is that the difference between the content of Scripture and the content of the Tradition does not involve contradiction but only development. What becomes clearer than ever, however, is that the pririciple of sola Scriptura remains a watershed. As Cardinal Ratzinger as much as admitted in his reaction to Geiselmann, there are major Roman doctrines which are simply not found in the Scriptures. In this sense Scripture alone cannot be regarded as sufficient for the life of the Church.
But we must go further. There are important teachings in the Tradition which are not only additional to, but different from and contradictory to, the teaching of Sacred Scripture. These include the very doctrines which were the centerpiece of the Reformation struggle: the nature of justification; the importance of the principle of sola fide; the number of the sacraments; the sufficiency of the work of Christ, the effect of baptism, the presence of Christ at the Supper, the priesthood of all believers, the celibacy of the priesthood, the character and role of Mary, and much else. The more that Scripture is exegeted on its own terms the more it will become clear that in these areas Sacred Tradition does not merely add to Sacred Scripture, it contradicts it. And if it does, can it any longer be "sacred"?
A major development has taken place, then, in Roman Catholic interpretation of Scripture. For this we may be grateful. We should not grudgingly minimize the rediscovery of the Bible. Indeed it might help us greatly if we recalled more often than we do that responsibility for the confusion in Rome's understanding of justification rests partly on the shoulders of the great Augustine himself whom we often claim with Calvin as "wholly ours." Having said this, however, it is now clearer than ever (pace Geiselmann) that the Roman Catholic Church cannot and will not subscribe to sola Scriptura. It must deny the sole sufficiency of the Bible. And, as the Reformers recognized, so long as Rome appeals to two sources, or even tributaries, of revelation, the contents of Scripture and the substance of its own Tradition, it is inevitable that it will also withstand the message of Scripture and of the Reformation: sola gratia, solo Christo, sola fide.

 

[HisKid1973]

http://mbrem.com/bible/traditn.htm

Roman Catholic scholars such as Professor Fitzmyer have been given the freedom to explore what Scripture teaches. They discover themselves looking over their shoulders at the Roman Catholic traditionalists who do not hide their anxiety that such open distancing between Scripture and Tradition will be the downfall of the Church. Consequently their characteristic refrain is that the difference between the content of Scripture and the content of the Tradition does not involve contradiction but only development. What becomes clearer than ever, however, is that the pririciple of sola Scriptura remains a watershed. As Cardinal Ratzinger as much as admitted in his reaction to Geiselmann, there are major Roman doctrines which are simply not found in the Scriptures. In this sense Scripture alone cannot be regarded as sufficient for the life of the Church.
But we must go further. There are important teachings in the Tradition which are not only additional to, but different from and contradictory to, the teaching of Sacred Scripture. These include the very doctrines which were the centerpiece of the Reformation struggle: the nature of justification; the importance of the principle of sola fide; the number of the sacraments; the sufficiency of the work of Christ, the effect of baptism, the presence of Christ at the Supper, the priesthood of all believers, the celibacy of the priesthood, the character and role of Mary, and much else. The more that Scripture is exegeted on its own terms the more it will become clear that in these areas Sacred Tradition does not merely add to Sacred Scripture, it contradicts it. And if it does, can it any longer be "sacred"?
A major development has taken place, then, in Roman Catholic interpretation of Scripture. For this we may be grateful. We should not grudgingly minimize the rediscovery of the Bible. Indeed it might help us greatly if we recalled more often than we do that responsibility for the confusion in Rome's understanding of justification rests partly on the shoulders of the great Augustine himself whom we often claim with Calvin as "wholly ours." Having said this, however, it is now clearer than ever (pace Geiselmann) that the Roman Catholic Church cannot and will not subscribe to sola Scriptura. It must deny the sole sufficiency of the Bible. And, as the Reformers recognized, so long as Rome appeals to two sources, or even tributaries, of revelation, the contents of Scripture and the substance of its own Tradition, it is inevitable that it will also withstand the message of Scripture and of the Reformation: sola gratia, solo Christo, sola fide.

Wow ..Very good and interesting read...pax..kim

 

[Look Homeward Anglican]

The only way any of you will have a good understanding of Catholic beliefs is by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The writings of scholars are second-hand accounts which, when read out of context and with a specific purpose in mind, will yeild varying conclusions.

 

[Redwolf]

I think you have a misunderstanding of Protestant doctrine. To say that folks just proclaimed that "the Holy Spirit told me this" and doctrine was created is treating our doctrine with disrespect. Many of our church fathers spent a considerable amount of time in prayer and in deep study of God's Word and that is how our doctrine was formed. Please try to understand our doctrine without preconceived ideas or misunderstandings.

Respectfully,
CC&E

The outline for studying scripture is found in scripture, and with the guidance of God's Spirit, true meaning is found with perseverance and dedication.

Isa 28:10
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For it is precept on precept, precept on precept; line on line, line on line; here a little, there a little.

And study means exactly that. Studying the bible is not as if you are reading a romance novel, or Reader's Digest.

2 Timothy 2:15
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Study to shew yourself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Notice it does NOT say, magisterium study to show itself approved, it talks about YOU. And YOU and God's SPIRIT make the only credible team. He will not let you down.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[Redwolf]

The only way any of you will have a good understanding of Catholic beliefs is by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The writings of scholars are second-hand accounts which, when read out of context and with a specific purpose in mind, will yeild varying conclusions.

Is that so? Then any of your books, treatises on doctrine, carefully researched material by your scholars are a waste of time?

And you do research carefully, eh? No?

I had no idea the RCC has second-hand anything.

Would your priest agree with you?

It sounds as if you did not read the article, or you did not understand what it says. I have no problem with that.

 

[cathmomof3]

http://mbrem.com/bible/traditn.htm

Roman Catholic scholars such as Professor Fitzmyer have been given the freedom to explore what Scripture teaches. They discover themselves looking over their shoulders at the Roman Catholic traditionalists who do not hide their anxiety that such open distancing between Scripture and Tradition will be the downfall of the Church. Consequently their characteristic refrain is that the difference between the content of Scripture and the content of the Tradition does not involve contradiction but only development. What becomes clearer than ever, however, is that the pririciple of sola Scriptura remains a watershed. As Cardinal Ratzinger as much as admitted in his reaction to Geiselmann, there are major Roman doctrines which are simply not found in the Scriptures. In this sense Scripture alone cannot be regarded as sufficient for the life of the Church.
But we must go further. There are important teachings in the Tradition which are not only additional to, but different from and contradictory to, the teaching of Sacred Scripture. These include the very doctrines which were the centerpiece of the Reformation struggle: the nature of justification; the importance of the principle of sola fide; the number of the sacraments; the sufficiency of the work of Christ, the effect of baptism, the presence of Christ at the Supper, the priesthood of all believers, the celibacy of the priesthood, the character and role of Mary, and much else. The more that Scripture is exegeted on its own terms the more it will become clear that in these areas Sacred Tradition does not merely add to Sacred Scripture, it contradicts it. And if it does, can it any longer be "sacred"?
A major development has taken place, then, in Roman Catholic interpretation of Scripture. For this we may be grateful. We should not grudgingly minimize the rediscovery of the Bible. Indeed it might help us greatly if we recalled more often than we do that responsibility for the confusion in Rome's understanding of justification rests partly on the shoulders of the great Augustine himself whom we often claim with Calvin as "wholly ours." Having said this, however, it is now clearer than ever (pace Geiselmann) that the Roman Catholic Church cannot and will not subscribe to sola Scriptura. It must deny the sole sufficiency of the Bible. And, as the Reformers recognized, so long as Rome appeals to two sources, or even tributaries, of revelation, the contents of Scripture and the substance of its own Tradition, it is inevitable that it will also withstand the message of Scripture and of the Reformation: sola gratia, solo Christo, sola fide.

This is the writing of ONE Catholic scholar...You should try reading what the MAJORITY of Catholic scholars have found upon studying scripture, such as Scott Hahn (ex- protestant preacher) and many many others.

 

[cathmomof3]

The outline for studying scripture is found in scripture, and with the guidance of God's Spirit, true meaning is found with perseverance and dedication.

Isa 28:10
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For it is precept on precept, precept on precept; line on line, line on line; here a little, there a little.

And study means exactly that. Studying the bible is not as if you are reading a romance novel, or Reader's Digest.

2 Timothy 2:15
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Study to shew yourself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Notice it does NOT say, magisterium study to show itself approved, it talks about YOU. And YOU and God's SPIRIT make the only credible team. He will not let you down.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

Are you suggesting that Catholics do not STUDY the Bible on their own?? That is completely and utterly incorrect.

 

[Look Homeward Anglican]

"You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:1-2).

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

"‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete" (2 John 12).

 

[Redwolf]

The trouble with Protestant doctrine is that it stems from a divergence with Catholic doctrine. Protestant churches can be traced historically to some sound doctrine they decided they disagreed with -- which becomes the moment of their establishment.

Here's the trouble with Catholic doctrine:

Roman Catholic scholars such as Professor Fitzmyer have been given the freedom to explore what Scripture teaches. They discover themselves looking over their shoulders at the Roman Catholic traditionalists who do not hide their anxiety that such open distancing between Scripture and Tradition will be the downfall of the Church. Consequently their characteristic refrain is that the difference between the content of Scripture and the content of the Tradition does not involve contradiction but only development. What becomes clearer than ever, however, is that the pririciple of sola Scriptura remains a watershed. As Cardinal Ratzinger as much as admitted in his reaction to Geiselmann, there are major Roman doctrines which are simply not found in the Scriptures. In this sense Scripture alone cannot be regarded as sufficient for the life of the Church.
But we must go further. There are important teachings in the Tradition which are not only additional to, but different from and contradictory to, the teaching of Sacred Scripture. These include the very doctrines which were the centerpiece of the Reformation struggle: the nature of justification; the importance of the principle of sola fide; the number of the sacraments; the sufficiency of the work of Christ, the effect of baptism, the presence of Christ at the Supper, the priesthood of all believers, the celibacy of the priesthood, the character and role of Mary, and much else. The more that Scripture is exegeted on its own terms the more it will become clear that in these areas Sacred Tradition does not merely add to Sacred Scripture, it contradicts it. And if it does, can it any longer be "sacred"?
A major development has taken place, then, in Roman Catholic interpretation of Scripture. For this we may be grateful. We should not grudgingly minimize the rediscovery of the Bible. Indeed it might help us greatly if we recalled more often than we do that responsibility for the confusion in Rome's understanding of justification rests partly on the shoulders of the great Augustine himself whom we often claim with Calvin as "wholly ours." Having said this, however, it is now clearer than ever (pace Geiselmann) that the Roman Catholic Church cannot and will not subscribe to sola Scriptura. It must deny the sole sufficiency of the Bible. And, as the Reformers recognized, so long as Rome appeals to two sources, or even tributaries, of revelation, the contents of Scripture and the substance of its own Tradition, it is inevitable that it will also withstand the message of Scripture and of the Reformation: sola gratia, solo Christo, sola fide.http://mbrem.com/bible/traditn.htm

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://concordance.biblebrowser.com/t/truth.htm[/FONT]

 

[ksen]

The trouble with Protestant doctrine is that it stems from a divergence with Catholic doctrine. Protestant churches can be traced historically to some sound doctrine they decided they disagreed with -- which becomes the moment of their establishment.

So? I'm not agreeing to your premise but should we hold it against the Catholic church if their doctrine stems from a divergence with Jewish Rabbinical doctrine (according to them)? That the Catholic church can be traced historically to some Jewish doctrine they decided they disagreed with -- which becomes the moment of their establishment?

 

[Redwolf]

This is the writing of ONE Catholic scholar...You should try reading what the MAJORITY of Catholic scholars have found upon studying scripture, such as Scott Hahn (ex- protestant preacher) and many many others.

Why don't you share some!
Did you read the whole article? It mentions someone by the name of Ratzinger. That name sounds familiar to me.