Sola Scriptura and Sola Ecclesia: Accountability and Norming

[Lotar]

I disagree. I think it's easier to say, "Gee, I just don't know what to think, and I don't know if that's the Holy Spirit talking to me, but I'm not taking any chances. These guys look smarter than me, their older than me, then by default they must know more than me. I'll just go along with what they say." This way, you don't feel so personally accountable.

He didn't say it wasn't easier, he said it takes more humility.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches go by one thing and one thing alone- completely and entirely. That is, what the apostles taught. The Churches do not interpret or add doctrine. They preserve what the apostles taught by God's inspiration through three things- Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.

And what denominations arbitrate what is and is not wht the apostles taught that is not contained in Holy Scripture? In the Catholic Church, who/what determines that? Could it be the self-same Catholic Church?

And since the self-same Catholic Church claims that EVERYTHING they teach comes from Scripture and/or this "what the apostles taught" and since this "what the apostles taught" is norma normans for the self-arbitration of the self-same Catholic Chruch regarding the teachings of the self-same Catholic Church, is it possible for those teachings which the self-same Catholic Chruch insists is a part of this "what the apostles taught" to be normed as contrary to "what the apostles taught" as normed by the Catholic Church that insists it's one and the same thing? I think not.

I don't care what the Pope thinks. I care only about what the apostles taught, which the Church is entrusted with preserving.

Really.
Does your priest know that?

And who/what tells you what the apostle's taught but isn't so stated in Holy Scripture?
Who/what alone has the authority to interpret and apply and convey that? Could it be the self-same denomination that has self-claimed that it alone is the "sole arbiter" for the evalutation of teachings according to the norma normans of it's own teachings?

No, we don't believe what the Church tells us. We believe what the apostles taught.

Who/what tells you what the apostle's taught that's not a part of God's holy written Word? And since there's no reason to believe those apostles were inspired and no way to confirm they did in fact teach those things, what authority does that agency have to tell you those things? And who/what says they have that authority? If another denomination or agency made the same self-claim for themselves, would they also be infallible and unaccountable for doing so? Why/why not?


Just wondering...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[icxn]

I disagree. I think it's easier to say, "Gee, I just don't know what to think, and I don't know if that's the Holy Spirit talking to me, but I'm not taking any chances. These guys look smarter than me, their older than me, then by default they must know more than me. I'll just go along with what they say." This way, you don't feel so personally accountable.

It is also wiser:

The ways of fools are right in their own eyes; but a wise man hearkens to counsels. - Pr. 12:15
​

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Why do you refuse to stop at saying, "the church is accountable to God?"

Actually, he wrote "the Church" is accountable to God. I've found that those that embrace Sola Ecclesia nearly always refer to their own denomination in that way (at least in the USA). For Sola Ecclesia to stand, one's own denomination must be unique so that there is some basis for why it can embrace a principle of epistemology that they argue is absurd and to be rejected, why they are exempt, why THAT denomination can claim infallibility, unaccountability and thus the entire issue of norming is moot - but ONLY their own selves, no other Christian.


OF COURSE, all people are accountable to God. Hard to argue with that point. The question is: who or what determines if God approves or disapproves of their teaching? Who arbitrates that? For those embracing Sola Ecclesia, the self-same denomination does, so while God is the arbiter, it's the self-same denomination that alone knows God's arbitration. It does sound a lot more pious, however.


MY perspective.


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[a_ntv]

The question is: who or what determines if God approves or disapproves of their teaching? Who arbitrates that? For those embracing Sola Ecclesia, the self-same denomination does, so while God is the arbiter, it's the self-same denomination that alone knows God's arbitration. It does sound a lot more pious, however.


MY perspective.


Pax.


- Josiah


.

And which is your answer?

The Scripure? The scripture say always yes to anyone: orthodoxes, catholics, lutherans, calvinists, JWs.

The consesus?

Here is the way taken by some liberal catholics to became atheists: the way have a name: consensus

1 step) Why dont get the consesus with Anglicans? So let us no more speak about: pope and Mary.

2 step) Why dont get the consesus with Protestants? So let us no more speak about: Tradition, seven sacraments, bishops.

3 step) Why dont get the consesus with Non Denominationals?So let us no more speak about: Eucharist, sacraments, liturgy, Church

4 step) Why dont get the consesus with Unitarian? So let us no more speak about:Trinity

5 step) Why dont get the consesus with Jews? No? Are you anti-jewish? So let us no more speak about: Jesus as God (Jesus prophet is more politically correct)

6 step) Why dont get the consesus with Tribal Africans? No? dont you respect minorities? So let us no more speak about: One God (pantheism is more polite...also Japanises dont belive in one only God)

7 step) Why dont get the consesus with Atheist? No? dont you think that the love is enough? So let us no more speak about: God

I'm not joking.
That is typical of Europe.

I think that you shall define better the consesus.
Consesus between the group [lutherans+calvinist]? That is Sola Ecclesia where the subject is the group [lutherans+calvinist]
Consesus between the group [catholic+orthodox]? That is Sola Ecclesia where the subject is the group [catholic+orthodox]...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

MY perspective...

Josiah,

When I refer to "Church" in reference to your beliefs, I am doing so under the definition you supplied. It was your opening statement that says the entire Church is the arbitrator. I am not referring to denominations.

Now, allow me to address some issues here. We must first look at things from a logical standing point.
Entity: An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence, though it need not be a material existence.
Rule: prescribed guide for conduct or action
Now, it is impossible for an entity to be held accountable by a rule, it is only possible for it to be accountable to a rule. So, the Church cannot be held accountable by Scripture.

So, if the Church is accountable to Scripture, who then holds it accountable? The answer is that it is the individual who holds the corporate accountable to Scripture. There is no other possible option, as there are only two visible entities in play here, corporate and individual.

Doctrine:a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school
Dogma: a belief or set of beliefs that a religion, political, philosophical, or moral group holds to be unquestionably true
Now, you can make the claim that sola scriptura is not dogma, but it certainly fits the definition of doctrine and is therefore subject to analysis as such.

For the sake of clarity, in the following, assume "Church" to mean the entire body of Christians.
The consensus of the Church can take the form in two different ways, which are, rejecting a doctrine or embracing a doctrine. Prior to the Reformation, the entire Church embraced the view that the individual was accountable to the Church. As such, it was in the likeness of the Arian controversy. The Church did not have a pre-existing explicit rejection of the new doctrines for the very reason that they had never been proposed before. What the Church did have was a pre-existing implicit rejection of the new doctrines, in other words, the Church's consensus had been to embrace doctrines that were mutually exclusive to the new ones.
At the advent of the Reformation, there were only three Christian bodies: the Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Oriental Church. All three of these bodies held to a view concerning the Church that was mutually exclusive to sola scriptura, and had maintained it for the previous 1500 years.

An excellent post, and there are some points here that can advance our discussion.

But in the words of a former girlfriend of mine, "you are sending me mixed messages." So, when we say "church" are we taking about all Christians - the whole body of believers past and present OR are we talking about the RCC, EO, OO denominations? Are we talking about institutions or believers? If we could clarify that, we can proceed with that part of the discussion. You raise important issues so I hope we can proceed.


No, the emphasis on individualism is in Sola Ecclesia. It's the basis of it. I reject that.


No, neither Sola Scriptura or Sola Ecclesia are doctrines or dogma or even pious opinions. They are principles, tools, approaches, methods. They present the process by which teachings (which include pious opinions, doctrines, dogmas and more) are normed. They certainly flow from doctrines (especially of the church, Scripture and man) but they themselves are not doctrines.




I tend to think you are correct that the RCC, the EO and the OO by the 16th century had well bought into the institutionalization of Christ and Christianity - it's pretty much what caused them. I'd put that far earlier than that - before 1054. And IF (??) your point is that there was a consensus at that point in time that I therefore should accept as providing norming, then you've missed the whole point of Sola Scriptura and I'd refer you back to the opening post. Please review that, since I'm not going to go over the relevant points of that again here in response to this issue.

Once you do review that, let me add this flawed illustration to get at the particular situation you might be raising here. Let's say the good citizens of a certain village want to build a wall around their town exactly one yard (36 inches) high. The village hardware store owner gives the townmens a yard stick (measuring stick = "Canon" in Greek or "Rule" in English, the "norma normans" as it's called in epistemology). But the yard stick is broken and is only 30 inches long. Now, there are 100 townsmen and all 100 townsmen use the "yardstick" (Canon/Rule) as the norma normans for the wall they have built - and since every single one of them has determined that at every point the wall measures up, therefore, the entire wall is one yard high. But it's not. The problem here was not in the arbitration but in the Canon. The majority - even a supermajority - can be wrong if their norma normans is wrong. Even a flawless arbitration will be in error if the Canon/Rule was in error. Sola Scriptura directs our attention to the flawless, errorless, infallible written Word of God - what we ALL embrace as the Authoritative, Apostolic, Infallible, DIVINELY-inspired, First Century written Word of God - written in words NONE can change or alter to suit themselves, words known and knowable to all. Nothing secret. Nothing hidden. No phantoms. ALL can see this norma normans.


Thanks.


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[NewToLife]

The majority - even a supermajority - can be wrong if their norma normans is wrong. Even a flawless arbitration will be in error if the Canon/Rule was in error. Sola Scriptura directs our attention to the flawless, errorless, infallible written Word of God - what we ALL embrace as the Authoritative, Apostolic, Infallible, DIVINELY-inspired, First Century written Word of God - written in words NONE can change or alter to suit themselves, words known and knowable to all. Nothing secret. Nothing hidden. No phantoms. ALL can see this norma normans.

This is nonsense, every time scripture is interpreted in a way not in line with the Tradition it is an integral part of it is effectively altered. Your whole arguement hinges on a point that is demonstrably false and dodging any real evaluation doesnt eliminate that weakness it just ignores it.

As an analogy you are like a man standing in a garden full of weeds endlessly repeating that the weeds do not exist as though that alters the reality.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

And which is your answer?

The Scripure? The scripture say always yes to anyone: orthodoxes, catholics, lutherans, calvinists, JWs.

The consesus?

Is your answer: The very same teacher who teaches the teaching under review via the norm of his own teaching - and he arbitrates himself according to the teachings of himself infallibly and thus accountability and norming are moot?


I already gave my answer in the opening post.


Thank you.


Pax.


- Josiah

 

[a_ntv]

Sola Scriptura directs our attention to the flawless, errorless, infallible written Word of God - what we ALL embrace as the Authoritative, Apostolic, Infallible, DIVINELY-inspired, First Century written Word of God - written in words NONE can change or alter to suit themselves, words known and knowable to all. Nothing secret. Nothing hidden. No phantoms. ALL can see this norma normans.

.

I like this post of you. I agree

If "Sola Scriptura" is simply the will to direct our attention to the inspired, First Century written Word of God, ALL here agree!!!
If "Sola Scriptura" is not change or alter to suit themselves, words known and knowable to all. Nothing secret. Nothing hidden. No phantoms, ALL here agree!!!

But almost all denominations do it (well, I have some doubts on JWs..)

 

[icxn]

Why should we abandon our Orthodox Teachings and Traditions when they help us experience the Kingdom of God for the sake of conforming to some abstract epistemological principle?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I like this post of you. I agree

If "Sola Scriptura" is simply the will to direct our attention to the inspired, First Century written Word of God, ALL here agree!!!
If "Sola Scriptura" is not change or alter to suit themselves, words known and knowable to all. Nothing secret. Nothing hidden. No phantoms, ALL here agree!!!

But almost all denominations do it (well, I have some doubts on JWs..)

Friend, we seem to be going 'round and 'round on this... I've already, repeatedly, quoted from various sources that the Catholic Church (and some others - all the ones that embrace Sola Ecclesia) embrace BOTH Scripture PLUS their won teachings (Tradition) as norma normans - they do NOT embrace Scripture Alone.

And I've already revealed and illustrated that if our own teachings are EQUAL and INSEPARABLE to Scripture, then Scripture must teach and mean whatever our teachings say they do, thus creating an altogether different situation that what I'm speaking about.


At the very, very high chance of sidetracking our pretty much thread here, let me raise an illustration (no offense meant in this): There's a large and significant difference of concerning the Assumption of Mary - a DOGMA in the Catholic Church but (as far as I know) only in the Catholic Church. All Christians are invited to the table, and we begin with confession and prayer. Then we open the Scriptures - God's infallible, holy, authoritative written Word for us - and look for the corpus of Scriptures that speak of the death of Mary (problem #1). From this corpus of Holy Authoritative Scriptures, perhaps more than one sound interpretation is presented and there is a respectful disagreement. Now enters the issue of arbitration. There are two possibilities - each individual (person, congregation or denomination) arbitrates this infallibly and without any accountability (Sola Ecclesia) or the church catholic - the one holy catholic and apostolic church, the communion of saints, the people of God - do it together.

To help you understand this distinction, illustrations from the legal system have been offered (The Rule of Law is similar to the Rule of Scripture and the arbitation process is often similar), as well as several other illustrations.


But, for denominations that use Sola Ecclesia, the process is altogether different, because they bring many things to the table - not ONLY Scripture (ah, they would be embracing Sola Scriptura if that were the case) but ALSO, EQUALLY their own teachings - what they themselves claim to be "infallible preaching", what they themselves embrace, define, interpret and apply as "Tradition." Whether it's CC or LDS, such is considered to be EQUAL to the Bible, indeed, inseparable from it, so that what "Tradition" (as that particular denomination so defines, interprets and applies) is what the Bible says - and vise versa. It's self arbitrating self according to the norm of self and then self declaring self to be infallible, unaccountable and above norming that many are uncomfortable with. Some conclude it's not a good method of providing accountability and norming. Those that embrace it STRONGLY and PASSIONATELY disagree - it's the only way to do it, but only for them, only when they themselves use this approach - it's to be ridiculed and rebuked if any other Christian does it this way.


Thank you.


MY perspective.


Pax.


- Josiah



.

 

[Easystreet]

Scripture Only - Why? - There are more than one reason, but the one offered here is, The standard never changes.

Scripture never changes. Yes different Interpretations, but the written word never changes and it that solo standard to return to.

If the Church takes the Bible's place then we are at the feeling, ideas, and whims of humanity. God does not change, His word is settled, but fallen humans which make up the earthly representation of the church is still fallible.

Gordon

 

[Lotar]

Josiah,

Allow me to first speak on you concerns about the constitution of the Church. In order for you to evaluate my beliefs, you must do so under my underlying set of principles concerning said belief, and vise versa. For me to properly understand and evaluate your belief in sola scriptura, I must do so taking into account of your understanding of the Church as an invisible mystical body of all believers. In order for you to understand my position and evaluate it properly, you must also do so taking into account of my understanding of the Church.

As far my understanding of the Church, I hope it can be stated in such a way that it does not bring offense. When we speak of you as Christians, we do so in the sense that we recognize that you in some sense follow certain Christian beliefs and practices. Still, it must be recognized that you are not united to the Church and so are still not Christian in the fullest meaning of the word.

So, to address your argument that we follow a system of individualism is rather baseless. In order to make this claim you must take your Protestant understanding of the Church and apply it to us. This cannot be done without first proving your definition to be correct.

Now, to extend upon the definitions I provided previously, let us look at these words.
Principle: A principle is something, usually a rule or norm, that is part of the basis for something else.
Belief: any cognitive content held as true
Doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school
Dogma: a belief or set of beliefs that a religion, political, philosophical, or moral group holds to be unquestionably true
I'm sorry, but I cannot see your point that sola scriptura is not a doctrine. As far as I can see it fits the definition perfectly, but if you still think otherwise, please enlighten me.

Now, my previous question has yet to be answered. Who, in your mind, holds the Church accountable? You have confirmed that the Church is held accountable to Scripture, but you fail to explain who holds the Church accountable to it.

So, the point of my example is not to say that you should accept their consensus as norming. My point is to give you an example of how your system is perplexing to me. On one hand you say that the Church is the arbitrator, yet on the other hand, this arbitration seems to have little to no effect in application. Furthermore, it shows an example of what I see as the individual ultimately holding the Church accountable to Scripture.

 

[a_ntv]

All Christians are invited to the table, and we begin with confession and prayer. Then we open the Scriptures - God's infallible, holy, authoritative written Word for us - and look for the corpus of Scriptures that speak of the death of Mary (problem #1). From this corpus of Holy Authoritative Scriptures, perhaps more than one sound interpretation is presented and there is a respectful disagreement. Now enters the issue of arbitration. There are two possibilities - each individual (person, congregation or denomination) arbitrates this infallibly and without any accountability (Sola Ecclesia) or the church catholic - the one holy catholic and apostolic church, the communion of saints, the people of God - do it together.

The way of act of my Church is the one I have highlight in Blue.

After lots of post, I more and more realize that we cannot speakthe same language bc we have completly different theologies of Church. For you the Church is a denomination or a institution, for us is the Body of Chirst.
We are speaking a different language (well, my english is very poor indeed).

Why dont you print and read the 'Lumen Gentium'?, not to look for excerpt to use in posts, but to learn our theology. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
I suggest you mainly the first 8 points, "THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH"

 

[racer]

It is also wiser:

The ways of fools are right in their own eyes; but a wise man hearkens to counsels. - Pr. 12:15
​

So, who would be the fool here? You or me? You claim that your faith is right, I admit that mine might not have everything right?
​

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Why should we abandon our Orthodox Teachings and Traditions when they help us experience the Kingdom of God for the sake of conforming to some abstract epistemological principle?

Totally off topic, but I can't resist responding...

Who says you should? As far as I'm concerned, any Christian can embrace anything that is a blessing to him and/or his faith community (congregation, denomination, etc.).

I have friends who pray the Rosary and are richly blessed by that - Soli Deo Gloria! The LAST thing I'd do is suggest there's something wrong with that! There's nothing in Scripture that teaches this is wrong, and if the "proof is in the pudding" - if it results in the fruits of the Spirit - I will rejoice with them (but may not embrace it myself - I own one, I've rarely used it).

If a brother of mine wants to worship with a liturgy centuries old and it blesses them mightily, how can I protest that? How can I condemn that? There's nothing in Scripture that suggests he must worship as I do or I as him, and he is BLESSED by this! Soli Deo Gloria!

If a Christian has the view that Mary and Joseph were deprived of a normal blessed sex live to their deaths, I won't object - the Bible is completely silent on this issue (as we would expect). There is an ancient and broad tradition in this and many embrace it. I don't disagree with them, I just don't agree with them. It's an open question and they've come to an opinion varient from mine, both from the silence of God's Word. Nothing wrong with opinions. Soli Deo Gloria!

But when they are declared doctrines/dogmas, when anathamas and condemnations are issued, when literal wars are fought and innocent blood shed, one is told he is not saved because he is not obedient to a certain denominational leader, when people are forbidden to be blessed by Christ in the Holy Eucharist because they agree on the Sacrament but not on the infallibility of a human leader, um, when OPINIONS and CUSTOMS are used to divide, condemn, separate, even to hate and kill - that's when I began to be concerned and John 17 and many other Holy Scriptures spring from my heart.


I've shared many times that consider ALL Christians to be Christians. I certainly consider ALL my brothers and sisters in the CC to be my FULL, UNseparated EQUAL brothers and sisters in Christ - equally a part of His Body, His church, the one holy catholic and apostolic church, the "mystical union of all beleivers." (It's not mutual, BTW). I consider NOTHING the people in that denomination teach to be heretical (It's not mutual, BTW). I pray daily for the denomination and her members, ministry, and Holy Father - not that they will be saved or return to the church of Christ or learn the Truth but because they are a powerful witness and tool to all those things (It's not mutual, BTW).


Yes, I DO think that ego has overtaken His church, as ironic as that is. Self claims, self-proclaimation, and the institutionalization of Christ has overwhelmed the Gospel so that our energy is focused on rebuking Christians instead of sin, trying to convert the already converted instead of the lost, loving nonchristians more than fellow Christians. I'm overstating my case, but not by much. AND a part of it - well a fruit of it - is this epistemology that says "I'm right cuz I am and so I am so there!"


Perhaps 90% + of Christians agree on 90% + of dogmas. But there is some that still remains without agreement - the consensus on these has not been reached. And oh how that 10% divides and hinders and harms the Great Comission and the Great Commandment. Obviously 1,000 plus years of YELLING "I'm just RIGHT - so THERE!" hasn't gotten us very far except to teach others to yell the words louder.


In one of these things, an accusation (baseless, IMHO) was made that Sola Scriptura was invented by the Protestants. A Protestant replied, "...because we'd witnessed many centuries of Sola Ecclesia." Maybe there's an element of truth in that. Add the Mormons and Brother Bob (an Apostle of Jesus Christ in my hometown) and countless other examples, and we're still leary of any teacher claiming to be infallible and unaccountable. Even more so now. With all the biblical warnings of false prophets, false teachers, antichrists, those that would lead many astray, with all we've seen in the history of Christianity and religion, a teacher who insists on being unaccountable and infallible is one some would suggest we should approach with great caution.


IF any progress will be made in advancing consensus, we need to begin with humility, confession and prayer AND, IMHO, we need to dump the "I'm right cuz I am so I am and you're not cuz I say you're not so there and I'm infallible and unaccountable and above any norming so what in the world am I even doing talking to you, just agree with me or be wrong" stuff. The only alternative I see is pure relativism or an abandonment of faith community entirely - and those are the only options we've given people and they are the one's they are taking. Sometimes, I don't blame them. But I"m not joining them.


Sorry for all the rants.
I've bearly begun...






Back to the topic?


- Josiah


.

 

[stray bullet]

nd what denominations arbitrate what is and is not wht the apostles taught that is not contained in Holy Scripture? In the Catholic Church, who/what determines that? Could it be the self-same Catholic Church?

No denominations, only God. Who arbitrates which scriptures are sacred and which are frauds? Insomuch as the Church was inspired throughout the Councils that set firm our canon, and our beliefs (such as the Nicene Creed), so does the Catholic Church act as an instrument of the Holy Spirit in preserving and setting firm Tradition.

And since the self-same Catholic Church claims that EVERYTHING they teach comes from Scripture and/or this "what the apostles taught" and since this "what the apostles taught" is norma normans for the self-arbitration of the self-same Catholic Chruch regarding the teachings of the self-same Catholic Church, is it possible for those teachings which the self-same Catholic Chruch insists is a part of this "what the apostles taught" to be normed as contrary to "what the apostles taught" as normed by the Catholic Church that insists it's one and the same thing? I think not.

There is no need to separate scripture from "what the apostles taught". Scripture, canon is a Church DECLARATION on what the apostles taught. I ask you, who determines the norms of scripture for you? By what declaration or knowledge do you profess the books of the bible to be inspired?

You eat the crumbs that fall off the table you left, only to attack those that eat what is served.

Really.
Does your priest know that?

I don't see why it matters. It doesn't matter what the Pope thinks or says. I'm not bound to it.
He's no more important to me than the man that sells you a bible. He is just a man who presents the word.

And who/what tells you what the apostle's taught but isn't so stated in Holy Scripture?

The Holy Spirit, acting through the apostles and those that succeeded them, from generation to generation.

Who/what alone has the authority to interpret and apply and convey that? Could it be the self-same denomination that has self-claimed that it alone is the "sole arbiter" for the evalutation of teachings according to the norma normans of it's own teachings?

The Church doesn't need the authority to interpret scripture- because we don't need to. We go by what the apostles taught and when their writing sync up with what they taught, that's just the way it is. Who is your authority? Don't say the bible, becuase the bible is a compilation of texts the Church DECLARED inspired. Surely, you can't take the Church's word.

So tell me, who is the arbiter who picked the Apocalypse of John and not Peter? Who picked the 4 Gospels from at least 13?

Who/what tells you what the apostle's taught that's not a part of God's holy written Word? And since there's no reason to believe those apostles were inspired and no way to confirm they did in fact teach those things, what authority does that agency have to tell you those things? And who/what says they have that authority? If another denomination or agency made the same self-claim for themselves, would they also be infallible and unaccountable for doing so? Why/why not?

The Holy Spirit does. I can't believe you are asking questions that can be asked right back about the bible.

The Church gets the authority to preserve the Church from Jesus Christ.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

MY perspective...

and what denominations arbitrate what is and is not wht the apostles taught that is not contained in Holy Scripture? In the Catholic Church, who/what determines that? Could it be the self-same Catholic Church?

No denominations, only God.

I think you're missing my point...

Who/What tells you what God has determined? Could it be the self-same denomination that self-claims to essentially be the Church of Christ, to be infallible and unaccountable, above norming?

ANYONE or ANYTHING can say "God says I'm right." It doesn't make it so - or not so. It's made more difficult when we have hundreds if not thousands of teachers (persons, congregations, denominations) all claiming to have secret dogmas God forgot to include in His Holy Scriptures, His holy written Word - but they know (and no one else) and they confirm this self-claim by self-claiming to be the "sole final arbiter" for this self-claim according to the norm of the self-same self-claim, and the result of this is infallible because they so self-claim and therefore they are above accountability and norming - the issue is moot for THEM but essential for everyone else.

And since the self-same Catholic Church claims that EVERYTHING they teach comes from Scripture and/or this "what the apostles taught" and since this "what the apostles taught" is norma normans for the self-arbitration of the self-same Catholic Chruch regarding the teachings of the self-same Catholic Church, is it possible for those teachings which the self-same Catholic Chruch insists is a part of this "what the apostles taught" to be normed as contrary to "what the apostles taught" as normed by the Catholic Church that insists it's one and the same thing? I think not.

There is no need to separate scripture from "what the apostles taught". Scripture, canon is a Church DECLARATION on what the apostles taught. I ask you, who determines the norms of scripture for you? By what declaration or knowledge do you profess the books of the bible to be inspired?

I think you completely missed my point, sorry.


Read post # 3. This issue has been addressed. Then re-read what you quoted from me above.


My Catholic priest taught us that the Regional Council of Hippo did not create the canon - it affirmed the canon, the consensus that existed. And it actually simply listed the books from which the Sunday lectionary was to be from. No denomination wrote a single word of Holy Scripture. None. Not a word.

I don't see why it matters. It doesn't matter what the Pope thinks or says. I'm not bound to it.
He's no more important to me than the man that sells you a bible.

Wow.

I have an infinately higher opinion for and esteem of the Pope and Magisterium of the CC than you do, and yet I was barred from the Holy Eucharist in part because I don't consider him infallible. Ah, but you force me to recall that while I was told to sit there and reflect on my sins and errors (not embracing the DOGMA of the Pope as infallible), all my friends (technically registered Catholics) were welcomed - even though a great many of them denied Christ's Real Presence, Papal infalliblity, and much much more. Sometimes, as I would sit there abandoned and rejected, I'd reflect that I agree with Catholicism more than most of the Catholics I know.

And who/what tells you what the apostle's taught but isn't so stated in Holy Scripture?

The Holy Spirit, acting through the apostles and those that succeeded them, from generation to generation.

My point exactly.

It's this completely circular, self-authenticating, self-claims of infallibility and unaccountability that many are uncomfortable with. Catholics are too when others do it, just not when they do it.

Who/what alone has the authority to interpret and apply and convey that? Could it be the self-same denomination that has self-claimed that it alone is the "sole arbiter" for the evalutation of teachings according to the norma normans of it's own teachings?

We go by what the apostles taught and when their writing sync up with what they taught, that's just the way it is.

Well put, I think this is exactly as the Catholic Church teaches. But, it seems, you neglected the quote from me that you posted.

According to the Catholic Church with it's embrace of Sola Ecclesia, does the teacher who teaches the dogmas that the Apostle's allegably taught (but God forgot to include in His Holy Scriptures, His written Word) self-arbitrate self in this regard, according to the self-same teachings of that self-same teacher, and the self-same declares himself infallible and thus unaccountable and thus above this whole issue of norming? Infallibly right cuz he just is??? Follow?

And why is this process so correct and passionately defended when the CC embraces Sola Ecclesia and so rejected, so ridiculed when any other does exactly what the CC does? I think a lot of Protestants wonder about that.

Who is your authority? Don't say the bible, becuase the bible is a compilation of texts the Church DECLARED inspired. Surely, you can't take the Church's word.

See post # 3.

No, no denomination wrote a single word of Holy Scriptures - not a single word. And I agree with my priest that the REGIONAL Council of Hippo did not create the Canon, Christians did, the Council simply affirmed the Canon, as have hundreds of similar councils and meetings, Soli Deo Gloria.

So tell me, who is the arbiter who picked the Apocalypse of John and not Peter? Who picked the 4 Gospels from at least 13?

IMHO, the church catholic - and still does to this day. But read post #3.

Who/what tells you what the apostle's taught that's not a part of God's holy written Word? And since there's no reason to believe those apostles were inspired and no way to confirm they did in fact teach those things, what authority does that agency have to tell you those things? And who/what says they have that authority? If another denomination or agency made the same self-claim for themselves, would they also be infallible and unaccountable for doing so? Why/why not?

The Holy Spirit does.

As determined by what/whom? According to the CC (and all others embracing Sola Ecclesia) could it be the self-same denomination that self-claims to essentially be the Church of Christ, infallible and accountable only to itself and to God as it itself infallibly and unquestionably so self-claims?? And two do this, or is this something only the CC can do??

The Church gets the authority to preserve the Church from Jesus Christ.

So THE Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints self-claims. Doesn't make it so (or not), IMHO. And if the teacher is the sole final arbiter for the self-same teacher, and if the norma normans for this self-evaluation is the teachings (Tradition) of the self-same teacher, and if the resulf of this self arbitrates self according to self is infallible and unaccountable (above norming), then the LDS is correct. Infallibly. End of discussion. There is no other possible conclusion for there is no other possible function of the principle they have embraced. I can accept that as a pure article of faith, but we're talking in this thread about accountability, how the whole church - the whole company of Christians - can know if what the LDS teaches is correct or not. It's called norming. It's what we are discussing. Accountability. Norming.


Thank you.


Back to the topic?


Pax.


- Josiah



.

 

[Lotar]

You still haven't answered my question. Who, in your mind, holds the Church accountable?

 

[ETide]

You still haven't answered my question. Who, in your mind, holds the Church accountable?

I believe that the scriptures speak clearly on this matter..

CHRIST is the Head of the church of God.. although what that means to folks can vary immensely of course..

CHRIST is also the Head of every man..

We're all accountable to God.. but this takes work.. many would rather sit back in the pews and let a few men do all of the work.. as they come and go without any accountability at all..

Being in Christ is a huge responsibility toward our brethren and toward our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore we are called to be steadfast, unmovable..always abounding in the work of the LORD, for we know that our labor is not in vain in the LORD..