Protestant Doctrine

[Lynn73]

Believe as you wish..I was just stating the Catholic's positions b/c of the posts stating "Outside of the Catholic Church there is not salvation" - We do not believe that protestants are outside the Church.

But, to clarify, it has to be your definition of the church, correct?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

"Outside the Church nobody will be saved. (Extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur)"(Origen, In Jesu Nave hom. 3,5)


"Outside the Church there is no salvation." (Salus extra ecclesiam non est) (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 73, To Iubaianus, n.21, Migne: Patrologiae Cursus completus. Series prima Latina, Parisiis; 1844)



Pope Boniface: " Furthermore, we declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Denzinger 468-69)



"It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)


"Christ Jesus left you this sweet key of obedience; for He left His Vicar, whom you are all obliged to obey until death. And whoever is outside his obedience is in a state of damnation." St. Catherine of Siena, MCH, reference #374, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: "The Book of Obedience", Chapter 1: "There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope").


"We teach,...We declare that the Roman Church by the Providence of God holds the primacy of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate. Toward it, the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both individually and collectively, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world, in such a way that once the unity of communion and the profession of the same Faith has been preserved with the Roman Pontiff, there is one flock of the Church of Christ under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation." Pope Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis (On Communism And The Church In China), Encyclical Promulgated on June 29, 1958, #46.

All this makes me profoundly sad...


That they were once said is understandable and forgiveable. That they still stand - boldly and officially....





Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[cathmomof3]

All this makes me profoundly sad...


That they were once said is understandable and forgiveable. That they still stand - boldly and officially....





Pax.


- Josiah


.

Again, Catholics consider protestants to be part of the Church

 

[a_ntv]

Believe as you wish..I was just stating the Catholic's positions b/c of the posts stating "Outside of the Catholic Church there is not salvation" - We do not believe that protestants are outside the Church.

But, to clarify, it has to be your definition of the church, correct?

Western protestants are anyway part of the Catholic Roman Church, even if in an unperfect way.
So dont worry for your salvation

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Again, Catholics consider protestants to be part of the Church

Does the Magisterium of The (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic denomination consider all Protestants to be submissive and obedient to the Pope? If so, they are wrong. If not, then what of all the official Catholic Church proclaimations about the necessity of submission and obedience to the Pope for salvation?





- Josiah


.

 

[simonthezealot]

It drives me crazy when this verse is used out of context...

2 peter 1:20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,

the proper interpretation of 2 peter 1:20-21 has nothing to do with individuals privately interpretating the scriptures.

In context all 2 Peter 1:20-21 is saying that prophecies come from God, and that their meaning is revealed to his people by God too.

2 Peter 1
16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there was borne such a voice to him by the Majestic Glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased:

18 and this voice we ourselves heard borne out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount.

19 And we have the word of prophecy made more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts:

20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.

21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 2

1 But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
...

21 For it were better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
....

2 Peter 3

2 that ye should remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandments of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles:

3 knowing this first, that in the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts,
...

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you;

16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware lest, being carried away with the error of the wicked, ye fall from your own stedfastness.

18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and for ever. Amen.

 

[a_ntv]

If not, then what of all the official Catholic Church proclaimations about the necessity of submission and obedience to the Pope for salvation?





.

There is no strict necessity of submission and obbedience to the pope for salvation.
Ad instance, our EO friend that are not submissed to the pope have no problem for salvation.
This discrepance is considered like a venial sin, not like a mortal sin (as to believe that Christ is not God).

 

[a_ntv]

In context all 2 Peter 1:20-21 is saying that prophecies come from God, and that their meaning is revealed to his people by God too.

.

That is only your interpreation.
How can you be sure it is the only right one?
I honestly do not agree with you, and not bc of cc teaching

(for Josiah: we are speaking of hermeneutic, not of normative)

 

[simonthezealot]

That is only your interpreation.
How can you be sure it is the only right one?
I honestly do not agree with you, and not bc of cc teaching

(for Josiah: we are speaking of hermeneutic, not of normative)

What is your magisteriums interpretation of this???
How can you read anything else into this?
oh, I forgot there is the practice of mental gymnastics.

 

[a_ntv]

What is your magisteriums interpretation of this???
CC Magisterium do not give any interpretaion of single verses of the Bible
How can you read anything else into this?
I read in it simplt what is written: personal interpretation is by far less important than the teaching of the apostels
oh, I forgot there is the practice of mental gymnastics.
I dont understand. Sorry my English is quite poor

Pax

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

We agree that Holy Scripture is good for these things.

Sola Scriptura is an epistemological principle of norming for doctrine. It is not a doctrine, it's a principle. It cannot be proven any more than Sola Ecclesia can be proven. Principles can, however, be evaluated in light of their purpose.

Sola Scriptura is not Solo Scriptura. It does not exclude Tradition, the church, languages, history, logic or any other useful tool. Sola Scriptura is a principle for norming - not hermeneutics. No one is suggesting that the only tool we can use in interpreting a verse is the verse itself - such is not suggested any any Protestant known to me and certainly is not related to Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is an epistemological principle for norming.

The problem is this still doesn’t state or even imply that ONLY (i.e. sola) Scripture can do so. This mutual exclusivity of Sola Scriptura still has not been produced. Conspicuously absent is the statement the it is the Sole means by which we might be perfected in Christ. That is what is missing. It denies that there is any other source of religious authority or divine Revelation to humanity.

Sola Scriptura does not teach that the Bible is God; it certainly is means of grace (along with the Sacraments) but only God can save or perfect us. Sola Scriptura is an epistemological principle for norming, it's not God.

The problem is that Sola Scriptura itself is an extra-biblical,

man made doctrine that did not even exist until the 16th century. I believe that if it's new it ain't True; if it's True, it ain't new. There is no evididence for it for the first sixteen centuries of Christianity. That fact alone is enough to discredit it.

1. Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine; it certainly flows from some doctrines and envelops some - but it is not, per se, a doctrine. Nor is Sola Ecclesia. That alternative to Sola Scriptura also is not a doctrine, although it certainly involves a certain theology of the church. When we are evaluating the principles of Sola Scriptura or Sola Ecclesia, we are evaluating epistemological principles for norming.


2. I respectfully disagree that Sola Scriptura is new. Jesus, Peter and Paul repeatedly, over and over and over, referred to the Scriptures as norming, they never once - not once - refered to the Roman Catholic Church as norming (or any other denomination or institution).


3. Principles can be evaluated. Principles of norming are to provide accountability and avoid self-authentication. So, we can evaluate Sola Scriptura and Sola Eccelesia in this light.


The Church of Josiah teaches that all girls are saved. There's the teacher and the teaching.

Sola Ecclesia: The Church of Josiah (as the teacher) is the "sole final arbiter" for the teaching of the Church of Josiah. This evaluation must be according to the teachings and claims ("Tradition") of the Church of Josiah, which, of course, includes that all girls are saved. So, on the basis of the norma normans (the rule, the Canon, the Standard) of the teachings of the Church of Josiah, the Church of Josiah will determine if the teachings of the Church of Josiah are correct. Whatismore, the conclusion which the Church of Josiah comes to as it alone evaluates the teachings of the Church of Josiah as normed by the teachings of the Church of Josiah are infallible, because the Church of Josiah so self-claims. And because the Church of Josiah self-claims that it's teachings are infallible, therefore they are unaccountable, except to the Church of Josiah. We can evaluate that principle in terms of the accountability it provides to the Church of Josiah, and the amount of self-authentication it avoids. (The ironic thing is while every church that embraces this principle of Sola Ecclesia defends it with a passion, they do so ONLY when they themselves use it, they ridicule it when ANYONE else uses it - which makes me wonder about the principle, but I digress).

Sola Scriptura. It is the responsibility of the Church of Josiah to reveal how this teaching is taught by God in His written Word - the the teachings of the Church of Josiah are accountable, so that it's words are under God's written Word. There is nothing in Scripture that confirms that all girls, by virtue of their DNA, are saved, therefore it has not been substantiated. This, too can be evaluated in terms of the accountability it provides and the self-authentication it avoids.

Now, unlike Sola Ecclesia which insists that only self can be the final arbiter for self, ie only self can use the principle, Sola Scriptura leaves that issue unaddressed - it's simply not a part of the principle as to who uses it. Some believe that each individual is to use the principle. These are agreeing with the Catholics and Mormons with Sola Eccelsia that the only appropriate interpretations are private ones by self (self = individual person, congregation or denomination) but the difference being they subject the Teaching to Scripture not to the Teaching itself - it's a different norma normans, even though it's still self arbitrating self. These people believe in careful, prayerful study with others, looking to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, with the goal being conviction. Some of those Protestants have posted in this thread. Others believe that the principle of Sola Scriptura is to be used collectively, by the whole church catholic, also slowly, carefully, prayerfully, looking to the Holy Spirit, but with emphasis on collectively and with the goal as consensus. BUT, regardless of WHO is permitted to use the principle of Sola Scriptura, the principle says that such is subject to, accountable to Scripture - not the other way around.

Sola Ecclesia: Self arbitrates self according to the norma normans of self, and such is infallible and unaccountable.

Sola Scriptura: God's written Word is the norma normans for self, and such is arbitrated either by self or collectively by the whole body of Christ.




An Illustration: You and I are in the back seat of a car. The driver wants to know what the speed limit is.. You say that the speed limit is 55 and I say that it's 45. The driver now needs to determ (arbitrate, evaluate) which (if either) is true. Now, you and I can both scream that we are infallible and unaccountable because we scream that we are infallible and unaccountable. We can scream that we just "know" because somehow, secretry, the designer of this road shared the secret with I alone and I'm now revealing it.. The driver can listen to our self-claims, he might consider who screams the loudest or longest, he can consider which of us is hte largest. All issues central to Sola Ecclesia. OR he might look at the sign. There's a sign by the side of the road. It says "SPEED LIMIT 35" Ah, in that case, he is subjecting us to an authority outside each of us, a written authority put up there by the authorities, written in such a way that neither you nor I can alter to suit ourselves. This is the essential difference between the two principles of norming that we are evaluating.




Neither Sola Scriptura nor Sola Ecclessia are doctrine and so neither needs to be proven (or can be). They are principles that can and should be evaluated.


An epistemological principle of norming is to do one things: Provide accountability. Which provides more accountablilty for self? Self or Scripture? Of course, no principle is infallible and can certainly be abused - that's true for both Sola Scriptura and Sola Eccelsia, but we're just evaluating the principles here.

7. When a doctrinal dispute arises between "sola scriptura" believers, who has the authority to resolve the dispute?

The principle of Sola Scriptura doesn't answer this question; principles rarely include who or how the principle is to be applied. As has been explained often, there are two different ways in which the principle might be applied, although functionally, it probably often falls somewhere in between. Some would say that the principle is in the hands of the individual (whether that be an individual person, congregation or denomination). This person, congregation or denomination looks to Scriptures - and carefully, prayerfully, humbly, slowly studies that written Word of God - looking to the Holy Spirit for guidance, with the goal of conviction. Others would say that this principle is in the hands of the whole church catholic collectively (collective rather than private). They, too, would insist that we carefully, prayerfully, humbly, slowly study that written Word of God - discussing even debating - always looking to the Holy Spirit for guidance, with the goal of consensus. BUT (and this is critical), HOW the principle is used is a different issue than the principle itself.

This would be in contrast to Sola Ecclesia, which says that the individual (person, congregation or denomination) is the "sole final arbiter" - that only self can evaluate self - and that this self-evaluation must be done according to the norma normans that includes the teachings ("Tradition") of self, so that self evaluates self according to self. Furthermore, that the unavoidable conclusion of this process is infallible and therefore unaccountable.

8. Where in the Bible are the words which state that the Word of GOD is restricted solely to what is written within Scripture?

As far as I know, it doesn't. That's why we speak of the WRITTEN Word of God. But in this highly practical issue of norming, we need to keep things within the realm of what we know. It MIGHT be that God has whispered some secret information to Joseph Smith - no one can "prove" that God did or did not. It MIGHT be that God is speaking through the mother of one of my homeschool friends as she frequently spoke in tongues, revealing all kinds of interesting things from the Holy Spirit - no one can "prove" that she is not. It MIGHT be that a man I met in a forum similar to CF some time ago who was told by God that Jesus was an alien from another planet was indeed speaking from God - no one can "prove" that he is not. It's ALL within the realm of the theoretically possible. The question becames: How to I evaluate Betty and her nearly daily revelations via tongues? Sola Ecclesia would say that Betty is the "sole final arbiter" for Betty - only Betty can norm the theology of Betty, and the norma normans (the Standard, the Norm, the Canon) for this self-evaluation is the teachings and self-claims of Betty ("Tradition" as she defines it), so that Betty evaluates Betty's teachings on the basis of Betty's teachings, furthermore, the conclusion Betty comes to is infallible and therefore unaccountable except to Betty and to God as Betty so determines (substitute "Betty" for Catholic or LDS Church or the Magisterium thereof if you like). Sola Scriptura would say that what Betty says is subject to what God says, her words are under God's Word - not the other way around. If Betty teaches, "Jesus had pink hair" Protestants go to Scripture to see what God has told us about Jesus' hair. We make her teachings accountable to God not to herself. We believe this provides for better accountability and less self-authentication. Remember, too, my friend, that while not all Christians accept the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, nearly 100% of Christians (including Catholics) embrace the Holy Scriptures - we ALL see them as first century, divinely inspired, authoritative, true, and apostolic. And they are written so that neither a Catholic nor a Lutheran nor a Baptist can change the words in the text to better suit them, they are there, in black and white. This, we feel, provides for a more solid Canon than "what I think/feel" or "what I teach is" as we attempt to norm the various viewpoints.


Protestants realize that anyone can self-claim anything, but we aren't so sure that it therefore, is true. Protestants have in mind all the firm warnings about false prophets, false teachers, antichrists, those that would lead many astray - and we're just a tad uncomfortable with this "self arbitrates self according to self and self is infallible" epistemology, we are apt to desire more accountability than that. And, of course, if self arbitrates self according to the norma normans of self, then self will tend to find self as correct - as can be witnessed as we listen in on a conversation between Catholics and Mormons. We are just a tad uncomfortable with that approach.




Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[ETide]

It drives me crazy when this verse is used out of context...

the proper interpretation of 2 peter 1:20-21 has nothing to do with individuals privately interpretating the scriptures.

In context all 2 Peter 1:20-21 is saying that prophecies come from God, and that their meaning is revealed to his people by God too.

AMEN, and one thing is certain.. it has absolutely nothing to do with individuals interpreting the scriptures on their own.. it's telling us where truth originates, and where it emanates from..

AND, imo, there is nothing more precious than the living and powerful word of God speaking to our hearts and our minds in a fresh and intimate way.. this is the miracle of the word of God..

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Honestly, what is the point of this question?

Shalom.

Peace my brother.

The point is to resolve all of the question in my post (quoted below). Although Holy Scripture is part of the revelation given to the Church, it does not claim to be its totality. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura does make this claim so, if the answering these questions needs anything that is not contained in Holy Scripture, then Sola Scriptura itself is extra-biblical.

is[/U] an extra-biblical, man made doctrine that did not even exist until the 16th century. There is no evidence for it for the first sixteen centuries of Christianity. That fact alone is enough to discredit it. Another is the very fact that it is not explicitly in the bible. The idea of the Sola Scriptura Bible alone[/i] (i.e. exclusive of any other means) is, ironically, nowhere in the Bible.

A number of other issues arise from this. Since "sola Scripture" states that everything that is necessary for faith is contained within the pages of scripture, the books of the Bible must be listed within those pages or the "sola Scripture" believer cannot know that those books belong in the Bible, because it doesn't say so!

Other questions which I would have to have answered in order to dispel my doubts about Sola Scriptura are the following.

1. Where in the Bible does Jesus tell His apostles to write the Bible?
2. The Bible does indicate that it gives good guidance for perfecting our faith, but where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority of faith and morals?
3) Where it says that the number of books in the New Testament is officially 27.
4) Where does it say what books belong in the NT?
5) Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example:
There was a version of Matthew's Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text. Another
with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
6) Who had the authority to determine which books belong in the New Testament?

These next two are the sina qua non for me.

7. When a doctrinal dispute arises between "sola Scripture" believers, who has the authority to resolve the dispute?
8. Where in the Bible are the words which state that the Word of GOD is restricted solely to what is written within Scripture?

If all of the above question cannot be answered from within the pages of scripture, I don’t see how anyone can legitimately claim to hold to this doctrine. There is far more evidence to the contrary than there is to support sola Scripture.
/quote]

It seems clear that we are not going to be able to reach an understanding on this matter. Perhaps the wise and charitable thing to do is to recognize that we do not agree on this matter and let it go at that.

May the Lord richly bless you in all of your endeavors.

Your brother in Christ.

 

[icedtea]

Western protestants are anyway part of the Catholic Roman Church, even if in an unperfect way.
So dont worry for your salvation

And thats where we realize you are wrong.
We aren't worried about our salvation. Even if the catholic church said we weren't saved, we'd still know we are.
And its not an imperfect way, we are fully saved(even?) and don't want to be in your church.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It drives me crazy when this verse is used out of context...

2 peter 1:20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,

the proper interpretation of 2 peter 1:20-21 has nothing to do with individuals privately interpretating the scriptures.

In context all 2 Peter 1:20-21 is saying that prophecies come from God, and that their meaning is revealed to his people by God too.

2 Peter 1
16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there was borne such a voice to him by the Majestic Glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased:

18 and this voice we ourselves heard borne out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount.

19 And we have the word of prophecy made more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts:

20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.

21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 2

1 But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
...

21 For it were better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
....

2 Peter 3

2 that ye should remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandments of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles:

3 knowing this first, that in the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts,
...

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you;

16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware lest, being carried away with the error of the wicked, ye fall from your own stedfastness.

18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Good point...


Some further thoughts...


What I find ironic is that no teacher supports private interpretation more passionately and boldly than does the RCC (well, LDS would be right up there), and yet with almost equal zeal, rebuke any others that engage in what they insist is the only appropriate way to do. The Catholic Church says that ONLY the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Scripture - and it's official interpretation is correct, infallible and unaccountable - the most extreme example of private interpretation known to me. "The (Catholic) Church is essential because it's the Church that explains what the bible says." - my priest. "The (LDS) Church doesn't need the bible, the bible needs the Church!" - Brigham Young.

The Catholic Church is zealous, passionate and bold in its insistance in private, unaccountable interpretation (even labeling it "infallible") but ONLY when they are the private party doing the interpretation. It seems to ME that if the principle of Sola Ecclesia is sound - it should be sound regardless of who uses it, the fact that they ridicule and rebuke it when ANYONE else uses it gives me pause in my evaluation of the principle they sooooooooooo boldly support and insist upon. There are those who conclude from all this that the Catholic Church in fact has no principle of norming at all - just whatever it says is true cuz it just is, put your hand down. I can understand why some come to that conclusion, and why coming to their mind are all the firm warnings in Scripture about false prophets, false teachers, antichrists, those that would lead many astray and if this insistance on private, unaccountable interpretation is a good and healthy thing.


MY thoughts...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[lionroar0]

And thats where we realize you are wrong.
We aren't worried about our salvation. Even if the catholic church said we weren't saved, we'd still know we are.
And its not an imperfect way, we are fully saved(even?) and don't want to be in your church.

The CC does not say who is saved and who isn't. Whether Catholic or non-Catholic.

A person is not fully saved till they are in heaven. Till then a person is free to reject Christ at any time in their life.

Peace

 

[Lynn73]

Western protestants are anyway part of the Catholic Roman Church, even if in an unperfect way.
So dont worry for your salvation

You're kidding right? That's what I get from your cute smiley face anyway. Since my salvation rests in Jesus Christ and not in the RCC, no worries.

 

[Lynn73]

AMEN, and one thing is certain.. it has absolutely nothing to do with individuals interpreting the scriptures on their own.. it's telling us where truth originates, and where it emanates from..

AND, imo, there is nothing more precious than the living and powerful word of God speaking to our hearts and our minds in a fresh and intimate way.. this is the miracle of the word of God..

That's right. I think Catholics need to look closer at that verse. No prophecy of scripture, not no scripture. Holy men of OLD spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. This isn't saying at all that Christians can't read the Bible on their own and understand it.

 

[a_ntv]

The Catholic Church is zealous, passionate and bold in its insistance in private, unaccountable interpretation (even labeling it "infallible") but ONLY when they are the private party doing the interpretation.
.

You say where the others are wrong.

I ask you positively who shall interpreter the scripture
- not the Tradition (you say that CC is wrong on it)
so who?
a) any people by his own (= as many truths as people are)
b) the Lutheran tradition ?
c) the World Council of Churches ?
d) no one ? (= the truth is not knowlable)
e) all togheter ? (= the truth depends on votes)
f) ??

 

[tall73]

Keeping in mind that Catholics acknowledge that protestants are PART OF the Catholic Church...
Here is exactly what the Catechism says:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

• Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

• Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

I see no way to reconcile point 847 with this statement from Pope Eugene's papal bull:



It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

http://www.catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html

(Emphasis supplied )