Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone

[Grafted In]

Forgive me. Just in case, I wanted to say that I did not intend that in any kind of snarky way. I am sincerely surprised if you run up against such comments daily

You are forgiven, Anastasia.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'll give an example i've used here before.
While flipping through channels I stopped to listen to Fr.Caroppi (sp) and got to liking his sermons. So whenever I'D see him on I'D watch. One day he gave a sermon I especially enjoyed. Near the end he got real serious and said "....and if you do not believe that Mary was eternally sinless and remained a virgin, then you are going to hell.

That's pretty blunt.

Ouch. Yes, I have to agree that it's blunt. I cannot answer for the official position of the Catholic Church. I've had discussions with many laity that were not addressing this exact dogma in this exact fashion, but from what we DID discuss, I would be surprised if they made the same statement.

(Incidentally, as you may know, the Orthodox Church does not teach the Immaculate Conception. It is allowed for Orthodox Christians to have a personal belief that that the Virgin Mary was sinless, but you just as often hear that she committed small sins. I expect many/most Protestants wouldn't push much past that, since in order for her to be "highly favored of God" and chosen to be the mother of Christ, logically speaking one would not expect to choose a great sinner.)

Anyway. I don't know what to say. For us, salvation is not simply boiled down to believing the right dogmas. And in discussing the matter with Catholics, I don't get the sense that they see it that way either.

I don't know the teacher. You know - if it was me, and if I enjoyed his teaching up to that point, I just MIGHT be so bold as to write him and tell him everything you said here, and see what his response is. He might have meant it differently, assuming he was speaking to a Catholic audience (I'm not certain, but my guess is that, FOR A CATHOLIC, to reject dogmas of the Catholic Church has different consequences than it would for a non-Catholic.) In thinking about it, he might even need to know what his comment meant to a non-Catholic listener.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I do not nor have I ever believed that the one true church is a denomination. There are probably saved and unsaved people in every church building on their day of worship. There are saved people hiding in plain sight of those who believe their church is the one true church.
A Christian is a Christian whether he attends catholic mass or attends services at a protestant gathering or milks cows on Sunday. Everything else is foolishment of men.

Yes, this is what I meant about "Church" having particular meanings.

Not to offend, but the Orthodox Church indeed does consider herself the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" ... BUT ... I think it's important to remember and consider that there WAS essentially ONE Church at the time, as opposed to Gnostics, Arians, and so on. It was not a statement that considered Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, and Catholics because there were no such divisions at that time. You were simply either in the Church, or if you didn't believe the same faith, you were out.

So I would say the same thing, as would nearly all Orthodox (and the ones I've met who don't agree tend to be very zealous new converts who don't yet know what the words mean either) ... I would also say that there are people who will be found in the Lamb's Book of Life in any number of different denominations, and in no organized fellowship, just as there are those whose names, sadly, probably won't be found there in every one. Including those baptized in Orthodox Churches.

You are forgiven, Anastasia.

Thank you, Bill (just noticed your name in your signature).

 

[Grafted In]

He might have meant it differently, assuming he was speaking to a Catholic audience (I'm not certain, but my guess is that, FOR A CATHOLIC, to reject dogmas of the Catholic Church has different consequences than it would for a non-Catholic.) In thinking about it, he might even need to know what his comment meant to a non-Catholic listener.

If that was his intent, then that also is the foolishness of men.

 

[mark46]

Well clearly much residue was left behind. Not a day goes by that I don't read or have a catholic tell me I'm not a member of The Body of Christ.

If the church thinks differently about it today you'd never know it.

The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to separated brothers and sisters is clearly stated in the catechism. With regard to the statements about going to hell because of not being a Catholic, the Church does not even make that statement about Jews and Muslims.

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

 

[MKJ]

Perhaps, I might be a bit clearer. There were many, many different sets of beliefs in the Christian communities, especially before Constantine and the later book burning. Saint Paul cautioned against the influence of other teachers. Saint John dealt with this issue clearly. Jesus seemed to have dealt with the issue when he prayed that we all might be one. There were many, many writings being read in home churches throughout the first three centuries. There were many, many beliefs. To be clear, the Egyptian monks (the desert fathers and mothers) knew little about the niceties of theology. If they were better organized and more vocal, they probably would have kicked out also.

The approach of the very early Church was to debate and then kick out those who didn't agree. We have a different approach today. Many think that accepting those who disagree as fellow Christians.

ONE EXAMPLE - ARE MAN'S ACTIONS RELEVANT TO SALVATION -Must there be some cooperation with the Will of God?

The GNOSTICS taught that we needed to accept God in our hearts. The Word was inscribed in our hearts, and it was the condition of our hearts that was important. As individuals, we needed to become more conformed to God. It was not the Church that determined our eternal life; rather, it was God and our acceptance of Him. The Church was not very relevant to the Gnostics. Gnostics were kicked out of the Church and their books burned. Although the Gnostics had many misunderstanding of the faith, we do not kick out modern day Gnostics.

PELAGIUS and his followers taught that man must cooperation with God's gift of salvation. Salvation required more than the Will of God and the actions of the Church. Man's actions could affect our salvation. We were able to affect when we go to heaven or hell. Pelagius and his followers were kicked out of the Church. And through this day, it is almost an anthem to call someone a Pelagian or even a semi-Pelagian.

LUTHER agreed that we are saved by Grace. However, he also taught that man's actions were important. Man was saved by Grace through his faith in Christ Jesus. Excommunication was the penalty for these views.

WESLEY taught that we must have free will to choose or reject God. He was called a semi-Pelagian. Since he was a bit alter, he was not ex-communicated. After all, he was an Anglican priest his entire life.

And NOW the Roman Catholic Church understanding on this subject are really not all that different from the past heretics on the subject. To put it another way, the views of Pelagius, Luther and Wesley on this subject are well within the bounds of Orthodoxy, even if Catholics now understand the doctrine a bit differently.
=======
If we are to be true to the very early Church, we should consider almost all Christian faith groups as non-Christian. I think that this would be folly. Perhaps, just perhaps, it was folly then as well.

How do you see this as fitting into the question of interpretative communities? Because every group that you have mentioned here maintains its own interpretive community, even today.

 

[MKJ]

As far as Fr Corapi, I think the main thing there is that he is a nut-job.

 

[mark46]

As far as Fr Corapi, I think the main thing there is that he is a nut-job.

In any case, he left the priesthood.

 

[~Anastasia~]

As far as Fr Corapi, I think the main thing there is that he is a nut-job.

In any case, he left the priesthood.

In all fairness, this ought to be considered.

I can think of one particular Orthodox clergyman who most assuredly does NOT speak the words of the Church on some subjects, but who still (at this moment) wears the robes and has the title. Such a person can cause a great deal of confusion to those outside the Church (and even some within the Church, sadly, who don't seem to realize how problematic his positions are).

 

[Erose]

There is only one true church. It is invisible and non-denominational.

Invisible? When did Christians become invisible?

 

[Erose]

Mark I think you bring up a very good point here, and I would like to expand it slightly. It seems that to be Protestant one believes in the five Solas, which is fine. The issue comes is that those 5 Solas are interpreted differently from one Protestant faith tradition to the next, making the terms almost useless in application. From experience on this board and others, when discussing one of the Solas especially the two primary ones, Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, one can get the feeling that they are in a pinball machine, bouncing back and forth between the differing shades of gray of these Protestant doctrines.

 

[Erose]

And NOW the Roman Catholic Church understanding on this subject are really not all that different from the past heretics on the subject. To put it another way, the views of Pelagius, Luther and Wesley on this subject are well within the bounds of Orthodoxy, even if Catholics now understand the doctrine a bit differently.
=======
If we are to be true to the very early Church, we should consider almost all Christian faith groups as non-Christian. I think that this would be folly. Perhaps, just perhaps, it was folly then as well.

. This isn't no where near correct, Mark. You have displayed in another thread your lack of a full understanding the Catholic teaching on Justification. You are commenting on something that you are confused about, perhaps more education is required. I understand that the Catholic view of justification can seem fairly complex, I get that, but it is not as you understand it.

 

[mark46]

Mark I think you bring up a very good point here, and I would like to expand it slightly. It seems that to be Protestant one believes in the five Solas, which is fine. The issue comes is that those 5 Solas are interpreted differently from one Protestant faith tradition to the next, making the terms almost useless in application. From experience on this board and others, when discussing one of the Solas especially the two primary ones, Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, one can get the feeling that they are in a pinball machine, bouncing back and forth between the differing shades of gray of these Protestant doctrines.

I agree that there is much difference in interpretation among the various Protestant denominations, even regarding central doctrines. There is even great difference (for example regarding sola scriptura) between those in the Reformation and those who teach today.

As is often the case, for me and others the issues is dogma/doctrine and theological opinion. Many in the RCC leave little room for theological opinion,perhaps because of what this has a led to in some Protestant faith. Of course, the issues can become what becomes essential. For most of the world today, the requirements of a minor sacrament is a church busting issue. During the Reformation, double predestination and works were considered at such a level, as well as the sale of indulgences.

SOLA SCRIPTURA
I will state a shot definition that the vast majority of Protestants would likely accept.
"All that is required for eternal life is revealed in Scripture; nothing added can required for internal life". This construction accepts the obvious fact that Truth is revealed in Scripture and interpreted within the community of believers, for traditional churches within the Church.

SOLE FIDE and FREE WILL
As a practical matter, the issue is whether those who have faith we can reject God. This continues to be an issue.

BOTTOM LINE
I see a great difference between the traditional Protestant churches and those who don't believe in eucharist and Church. As Americans, we think of Protestants as non-denominational evangelicals, Baptists, and non-denominational pentecostals. For most of the world, Protestants are Anglicans, Lutheran, Reformed and Methodist. I believe that the traditional church agree on quite a lot, although critically not on whether we can reject God's gift once we accept it.

For me, I think I take the view of the Vatican in being more "tolerant" of Protestant error than our forefathers in the early and medieval churches. They are our separated brothers and sisters, and part of the body of Christ.

 

[Grafted In]

Invisible? When did Christians become invisible?

What I mean is that, in my opinion, there is no universal church denomination or any other worldly identifying mark on a true born again Christian. One cannot be identified by his or her membership in any kind of group of persons. As i've written before, there have been believers living right along side of Catholic as well as other denominations from the Day of Pentacost all the way to this day.
Non-believers have existed amongst believers in all denominations as well, hiding in plain sight.
One's affiliation with any 'Christian' group or faith or organization is no proof that a person is saved.
There are many devout persons in all churchs, Catholic and Protestant, who are not saved.
The Kingdom of Jesus Christ is Spirit and therefore invisible. It is not of this world. It has no worldly

 

[Erose]

What I mean is that, in my opinion, there is no universal church denomination or any other worldly identifying mark on a true born again Christian. One cannot be identified by his or her membership in any kind of group of persons. As i've written before, there have been believers living right along side of Catholic as well as other denominations from the Day of Pentacost all the way to this day.
Non-believers have existed amongst believers in all denominations as well, hiding in plain sight.
One's affiliation with any 'Christian' group or faith or organization is no proof that a person is saved.
There are many devout persons in all churchs, Catholic and Protestant, who are not saved.
The Kingdom of Jesus Christ is Spirit and therefore invisible. It is not of this world. It has no worldly

Grafted In, I admit that i know what you meant when I typed it. I don't like this concept of "invisible Church" for quite frankly it isn't true. The only members of the Church that are invisible to us are those who art in heaven.

The Church here on earth with all its denominations and strifes, is quite visible to anyone and everyone who looks. This is a scandal that we all share. The fact is if you are baptized with water and the Trinitarian formula, and proper intent, you are a Christian. There is no invisible Church here on earth. Just one that is in scandal.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Grafted In, I admit that i know what you meant when I typed it. I don't like this concept of "invisible Church" for quite frankly it isn't true. The only members of the Church that are invisible to us are those who art in heaven.

The Church here on earth with all its denominations and strifes, is quite visible to anyone and everyone who looks. This is a scandal that we all share. The fact is if you are baptized with water and the Trinitarian formula, and proper intent, you are a Christian. There is no invisible Church here on earth. Just one that is in scandal.

That is what the world sees but it must be remembered that what God sees is the church w/o spot or wrinkle, therefore the members of that church are those Only who are in Christ and NOT the visable church made up of wheat and tares.

 

[Erose]

That is what the world sees but it must be remembered that what God sees is the church w/o spot or wrinkle, therefore the members of that church are those Only who are in Christ and NOT the visable church made up of wheat and tares.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that God blinds Himself when it comes to His children. Everyone who is properly baptized are adopted into the family of Christ, i.e. The Church. And there aren't any of those children still on earth that are without sin, except for infants, and the severely mentally disabled.

We as Christians I think wish we where invisible for then we wouldn't have to worry about looking like hypocrites and giving Christianity a bad name. But we just always have to remember that we are visible and those on the outside are watching.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I'm not sure where you get the idea that God blinds Himself when it comes to His children. Everyone who is properly baptized are adopted into the family of Christ, i.e. The Church. And there aren't any of those children still on earth that are without sin, except for infants, and the severely mentally disabled.

We as Christians I think wish we where invisible for then we wouldn't have to worry about looking like hypocrites and giving Christianity a bad name. But we just always have to remember that we are visible and those on the outside are watching.

Why would you assume that I believe God overlooks individuals in His view of the church?

 

[Grafted In]

My point was misunderstood.
The Kingdom of God is Spirit. One cannot look at a group of people (even among those coming and going from/to a church building) and determine who has the indwelling of The Holy Spirit.
My original post was not some kind of hocus pocus. I assumed that any believer would understand my words. Apparently not.
Can I make it any clearer for anyone?
The Body of Christ is not visible in that we cannot look at someone and see The Holy Spirit.
To make it even easier for those unable to understand what I mean, if you were able to gather together the entire world population would you be able to see The Body of Christ? Could you pick out the Christians?

 

[mark46]

Could you pick out the Christians?

Unfortunately not. At one point, we were known by our love and were different.

But your point is well-taken, we cannot tell who belongs to Jesus be looking at them, or by looking at what Church they attend. What you miss in your statement is that here on TT, we have a different view of the body of Christ, of Church/church than you do. Yes, all Christians are part of the church and the body of Christ. In addition, traditional Christians believe that there is indeed a visible Church, established why Jesus, through whom the Scriptures and teachings have past down from Jesus, through the apostles, to the Church of today.

Many of us have brought bibles to work, or wear crosses that can be seen. We do that so that we can be identified. Over the decades, these minor steps have started many conversations. Many have come to me and other Christians to ask questions.

So, as Francis was said to teach, we should evangelize at all times and if absolutely necessary, we whole use words. And as Peter taught us, we should always be ready to give the reason for our Hope.