- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,909
- 3,645
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
So you say, but it's not true. The Catholic faith is nothing if not integrated.
Upvote
0
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.
So you say, but it's not true. The Catholic faith is nothing if not integrated.Your definitions are all over the place, so whatever you say can mean whatever you want it to.
I would envy that if I didn't value integrity.
Just to clarify what RC means "word of God" is to them what was written and spoken. RC/EO/P all differ on those things. So, while it's nice sentiment, it's not necessarily true and certainly isn't provable.
If you fail, then it's because you don't know. Here's to what I refer from RC:I myself fail to see the need to define this phrase in a manner other than John 1:1-14. To the extent it is abused as a term for scripture I am reasonably certain I have encountered chaps on these fora who regard the Bible as uncreated.
Sleight of hand, a tool used by magicians to trick one into believing something unreal. Such you employ.During the course of my discussions with Protestants over Catholic doctrine, it has become clear that until the concept of sola scriptura (Bible alone) is refuted, we will be in a state of perpetually frivolous debate.
First let's correct your statement against what Sola Scriptura means.1. The Bible Never Claims to be the Sole Authority
If Jesus intended written scripture to be the sole source of authority for His followers after His ascension, it stands to reason that He or the apostles would have made that claim.
Ever hear the expression; the devil is in the detail. Expand your quote to see I highlighted the most important detail that escaped your argument.2. The Bible Endorses Holy TraditionUnlike sola scriptura, the authority of holy tradition is thoroughly stated throughout the New Testament. Some examples are:
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. - (1 Corinthians 11:2 - NRSVCE)
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter." - (2 Thessalonians 2:15 - NRSVCE)
"Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us." - (2 Thessalonians 3:6 - NRSVCE)
"So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ." - (Romans 10:17 - NRSVCE)
3. The Early Church Fathers Never Advocated for Sola Scripture
"Sola Scriptura" translates to "Scripture Alone". Quite why Protestants need to use Latin vocabulary words to describe their own doctrine, while one of history's great ironies, is beside the point. Now, the funny part is that a lot of Protestants will fudge on that point for whatever reason. I'll come back to this in a second.First let's correct your statement against what Sola Scriptura means.
Your own examples show that it does not do so explicitly. And in any case your statement sounds more like Prima Scriptura (more Latin) to me than Sola Scriptura.1. The Bible/Scripture DOES Claim to be the SUPREME Authority.
Why should a Catholic (or anybody) use your terms and limitations to explain and teach their doctrine? It's as silly as someone asking you to teach Sola Scriptura using non-Scriptural resources.As far as the idea of Papal infallibility, I would love to see scripture that proves that one.
I'm interpreting this as a criticism. Assuming I'm right, that's a quite bizarre criticism to make given that the papacy is inherently a political office.If one wishes the Pope to prove his truth with fruit, I think that is way too debatable. I think the current one too political/politically correct.
If division in the church is bad than take a look in the mirror at all the non Protestant churches you have split into. In fact these splits came before the Protestant divide. Your argument applies even more to yourself because of your belief in Apostolic Succession and inerrancy of bishops/popes. How is it possible for all the churches that hold to that doctrine that everything they say spiritually is God's true word and yet they have different doctrine?4. Sola Scriptura Produces Bad FruitFrom a purely logical standpoint, anything that consistently yields negative results is bad. This concept is not just logical, but an explicit teaching of Jesus, "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit." (Matthew 7:18 NRSVCE) Therefore, if the concept of sola scriptura is 'good' then it should yield 'good' results; however, this is not the situation. Sola scriptura has led to tens of thousands of divisions within the church which is emphatically against scripture.
Conclusion
If we truly believe that God is living and active in our lives today, then limiting His divine revelation to a group of XX written works outside of His explicit mandate is heresy. God's word is not stagnant and neither is his authority; they are living and active, revealed through holy tradition and holy scripture
Now you think to teach Martin Luther how to use Latin. He had a much better grasp of the language than you do. Can you understand the concept of how short "cute" expressions are used to name an often more complicated thesis? Imagine how many words are used to defend these two words, Papal Infallibility. Maybe you should try to understand the meaning of expressions instead of reading every sentence one word at a time. While you are at spend a couple of minutes on Wikipedia with the thread author to learn at least a basic understanding of what Sola Scriptura means."Sola Scriptura" translates to "Scripture Alone".
Is there an argument here where you refute something I postulate or is this just your opinion? I hope that the thread author whom I replied to is able to refute my post with a better argument than you just presented.Your own examples show that it does not do so explicitly. And in any case your statement sounds more like Prima Scriptura (more Latin) to me than Sola Scriptura.
Silly is what you write. Should I start a thread attacking Papal Infallibility using a made up definition that the Pope doesn't sin and everything he says is true? I am positive Mr. Catholic would have a problem with that.Why should a Catholic (or anybody) use your terms and limitations to explain and teach their doctrine? It's as silly as someone asking you to teach Sola Scriptura using non-Scriptural resources.
You have a most bizarre understanding of the word political. Where I live we have something called the separation of church and state. The church would be religions and their representatives. The state would be the laws, those in political office and those employed to enforce the laws.I'm interpreting this as a criticism. Assuming I'm right, that's a quite bizarre criticism to make given that the papacy is inherently a political office.
If the OP was speaking the truth, than denominations that followed Sola Scriptura are not sufficient. That means all us Protestants are going to hell. I would like to see him prove that.
Now you think to teach Martin Luther how to use Latin.
Be that as it may, it hasn't stopped modern Protestants from misusing his concepts.He had a much better grasp of the language than you do.
Such as "rhetorical question"?Can you understand the concept of how short "cute" expressions are used to name an often more complicated thesis?
Was "Your own examples show that it does not do so explicitly" too subtle? That wasn't a rhetorical question, btw.Is there an argument here where you refute something I postulate or is this just your opinion?
You seem a bit upset.I hope that the thread author whom I replied to is able to refute my post with a better argument than you just presented.
Yes that's true.Silly is what you write.
Are you just saying that because I identified the Pope as a legitimate head of state?You have a most bizarre understanding of the word political.
Assuming you refer to the United States, no you don't. What you have is an amendment to your Constitution which says Congress cannot pass a law which establishes a state religion. Similarly Congress cannot pass a law which interferes with the free exercise of religion.Where I live we have something called the separation of church and state.
You came pretty close to defining it right there--Scripture Alone is the defining authority for determining doctrine. It does not mean any of the other notions that opponents of SS (and those who simply don't know what it means) often say about it. For example, that it means everyone is free to believe whatever he personally thinks, or that tradition has no place in church life, or that SS means you cannot do anything unless it's specifically approved of somewhere in the Bible.But let's cut to the chase. You have told me that my understanding of Sola Scriptura (ie, the idea that Scripture alone is the only authoritative source for religious insight) is in error. What, then, is Sola Scriptura?
... Except that sounds more like Prima Scriptura than Sola Scriptura to me.You came pretty close to defining it right there--Scripture Alone is the defining authority for determining doctrine. It does not mean any of the other notions that opponents of SS (and those who simply don't know what it means) often say about it. For example, that it means everyone is free to believe whatever he personally thinks, or that tradition has no place in church life, or that SS means you cannot do anything unless it's specifically approved of somewhere in the Bible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?