Sola Scriptura?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Paul S

Salve, regina, mater misericordiæ
Sep 12, 2004
7,872
281
46
Louisville, KY
✟17,194.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Groovy said:
Yes, very nice.

I would agree that it is not the 'supreme' standard of truth, it is the standard of truth, but it is not the only standard of truth.

The only problem with Oral Tradition is that it can change.
Whereas Written Tradition is not changed.

The Church has changed a lot in 2000 years.

But the Bible is the same as it was when it was put together in... the first or second century.

√Groovy
Oral Tradition does not change; it develops. Nothing taught by the Church now changes contradicts anything the Church taught any time in the past 2000 years.

Groovy said:
But the people of the Church are not infallible. Nor is their interpretation of the Bible infallible. And even people of the one Church can interpret the bible differently.


The Pope and the bishops are, in certain situations, and their interpretation also is. That's why we're not to interpret the Bible on our own, like the Protestants do, but to be guided by the teachings of the Church.
 
Upvote 0

Groovy

Evangelical Catholic
Aug 4, 2004
978
21
37
Here now, there later.
Visit site
✟16,243.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Paul S said:
Oral Tradition does not change; it develops. Nothing taught by the Church now changes contradicts anything the Church taught any time in the past 2000 years.
I honestly don't know if this is true or not, (I have not been around that long :p) But it is a logical assuption.

Paul S said:
The Pope and the bishops are, in certain situations, and their interpretation also is. That's why we're not to interpret the Bible on our own, like the Protestants do, but to be guided by the teachings of the Church.
I did not realize any Bishops are, there are certainly a lot of bad Bishops for this to be true. I do know that the Pope is, only when speaking "Ex-Cathedra". Which Pope John Paul II has only done... once? or twice? But it is mostly on declaring dogma, I don't know about Scripture however.

√Groovy
 
Upvote 0

Groovy

Evangelical Catholic
Aug 4, 2004
978
21
37
Here now, there later.
Visit site
✟16,243.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
[font=verdana, geneva, helvetica]Okay, I found that the First Vatican Council resulted in two major dogmas: Dei Filius, which explained the relationship between reason and faith and Pastor Aeternus, which established the doctrine of papal infallibility. The most famous and controversial is that of papal infallibility, but the final decision was much more mild that desired by some.

There were those who argued that the pope should be considered infallible in all things and that this infallibility was the source of the infallibility of the entire church.

In the end, however, it was simply decided that the pope was infallible in a narrow set of circumstances: when speaking ex cathedra on maters of church doctrine.

√Groovy
[/font]
 
Upvote 0

thereselittleflower

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2003
34,832
1,526
✟50,355.00
Faith
Catholic
Groovy said:
True, very true. But the people of the Church are not infallible. Nor is their interpretation of the Bible infallible. And even people of the one Church can interpret the bible differently.




Individuals are not infallible . . . but obviously God did give infalliblity to some . .otherwise, how can the criptures be infallible?


Jesus also promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into ALL TRUTH . . if that is not infalliblity regarding doctrine, I don't know what is . . Jesus promised that the gates of hell or hades would not prevail against the Church . . . .


And if the Church is not infallible, how can She be the Pillar and Foundation of Truth?


Yet, Paul claims She is . .


Now, we get into the question of what is the Church . . but that is a related question to is the Church infallible . .



Are you suggesting that the Church is greater than the Bible? Rather than equal?


Which needs which? Does the Church need the bible? OR does the bible need the Church as infallible interpreter since it needs to be interpreted by its very nature?

Can we have the Church if we didn't have the bible? Yes Jesus gave us the Church . .

Can we have the bible if we didn't have the Church? No . . for it is the Church who canonized the bible . . not the bible who created the Church.

I have a problem with suggesting that the Bible is merely a 'book' since it is much more than a book. And it is much more than just 'inspired writing' It is the revelation of God.


In what way is it much more than just "inspired writing" ???

Now understand I mean divinely inspired . . is that what you are referring to?

How is it much more than "divinely inspired writing" ??

What else is it?



Peace in Him!


 
Upvote 0

Paul S

Salve, regina, mater misericordiæ
Sep 12, 2004
7,872
281
46
Louisville, KY
✟17,194.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Groovy said:
I honestly don't know if this is true or not, (I have not been around that long :p) But it is a logical assuption.

I did not realize any Bishops are, there are certainly a lot of bad Bishops for this to be true. I do know that the Pope is, only when speaking "Ex-Cathedra". Which Pope John Paul II has only done... once? or twice? But it is mostly on declaring dogma, I don't know about Scripture however.

√Groovy
Name one matter of faith or morals the Church has changed.

The bishops (other than the Bishop of Rome) are not individually infallible, but they are when teaching as a group in union with the Pope, just like Peter was individually and so were the Twelve together.

Papal infallibility has only been used twice, to define the dogmas of the Assumption and Immaculate Conception. Pope John Paul II has never used it (although he may have in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the document about the ordination of women), but there are several types of infallibility. There is the Extraordinary Magisterium (the Pope teaching ex cathedra or a Council of the Church), and the Ordinary Magisterium (everything else). The Ordinary Magisterium, as the teaching of the Church founded by Jesus and protected by the Holy Ghost, commands our obedience just as much as a doctrine declared ex cathedra by the Pope.

The Church has actually only conclusively interpreted a few verses of Scripture. One example is John 6, where "eat my flesh and drink my blood" must be understood as the Catholic view of the Eucharist. A Catholic cannot believe he was speaking figuratively without believing heresy. Another example is in Revelation 12 - the Marian symbolism must be recognised. She may also represent Israel, the Church, or other things, but a Catholic cannot deny that it refers to Mary. The rest of the Bible we may consider various interpretations, but always in light of the rest of the Church's teachings.
 
Upvote 0

Michelina

.
Supporter
Nov 6, 2003
13,640
663
✟19,733.00
Faith
Catholic
The Relationship Between Tradition and Sacred Scripture
One common source . . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal." Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age."

. . . two distinct modes of transmission


81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42 "And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching."

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."
 
Upvote 0

thereselittleflower

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2003
34,832
1,526
✟50,355.00
Faith
Catholic
Groovy said:
[font=verdana, geneva, helvetica]Okay, I found that the First Vatican Council resulted in two major dogmas: Dei Filius, which explained the relationship between reason and faith and Pastor Aeternus, which established the doctrine of papal infallibility. The most famous and controversial is that of papal infallibility, but the final decision was much more mild that desired by some.

There were those who argued that the pope should be considered infallible in all things and that this infallibility was the source of the infallibility of the entire church.

In the end, however, it was simply decided that the pope was infallible in a narrow set of circumstances: when speaking ex cathedra on maters of church doctrine.

√Groovy
[/font]
And thus you see the protection of the Holy Spirit regarding the teaching of the Church in regards to faith and morals . . . :)

Papal infalliblity is very, very narrow, and very rarely exercised as you discovered. :) It is protective in nature . .protecting the teaching of the Church. It is not innovative. :) And even more limited in circumstances than you described above. ;)


Peace in Him!
 
Upvote 0

Groovy

Evangelical Catholic
Aug 4, 2004
978
21
37
Here now, there later.
Visit site
✟16,243.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
thereselittleflower said:
Individuals are not infallible . . . but obviously God did give infalliblity to some . .otherwise, how can the criptures be infallible?
First I would like to say, this is an excellent point. Great post TLF!

Now before I go on, please understand I am not downplaying the authority of the Church.

Who are some? Only the Popes? or the Bishops AND the Popes?
However, not every Pope has been canonized. Infact there are a lot that have not been, especially after the fifth century.

Second: God knew that the Scriptures where going to be used for Thousands of years, don't you think he would have made sure the Scriptures where infallible?

√Groovy
 
Upvote 0

Groovy

Evangelical Catholic
Aug 4, 2004
978
21
37
Here now, there later.
Visit site
✟16,243.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Michelina said:
The Relationship Between Tradition and Sacred Scripture
One common source . . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal." Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age."

. . . two distinct modes of transmission


81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42 "And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching."

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."
Now this makes sense! :amen:

√Groovy
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paul S

Salve, regina, mater misericordiæ
Sep 12, 2004
7,872
281
46
Louisville, KY
✟17,194.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Groovy said:
First I would like to say, this is an excellent point. Great post TLF!

Now before I go on, please understand I am not downplaying the authority of the Church.

Who are some? Only the Popes? or the Bishops AND the Popes?
However, not every Pope has been canonized. Infact there are a lot that have not been, especially after the fifth century.


God gave infallibility to Peter, and to the Apostles as a group in union with Peter, and to their successors. Whether those Popes and bishops are in heaven or hell doesn't matter. Popes are infallible, not impeccable. They can and have sinned, but they have never taught error.

Groovy said:
Second: God knew that the Scriptures where going to be used for Thousands of years, don't you think he would have made sure the Scriptures where infallible?

√Groovy
The Scriptures are not infallible; they are inerrant.
 
Upvote 0

Groovy

Evangelical Catholic
Aug 4, 2004
978
21
37
Here now, there later.
Visit site
✟16,243.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
thereselittleflower said:
And if the Church is not infallible, how can She be the Pillar and Foundation of Truth?

Yet, Paul claims She is . .
Just a quick question: Can you point me to the verses for this?

Thanks,
√Groove Master
 
Upvote 0

Groovy

Evangelical Catholic
Aug 4, 2004
978
21
37
Here now, there later.
Visit site
✟16,243.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Paul S said:
God gave infallibility to Peter, and to the Apostles as a group in union with Peter, and to their successors. Whether those Popes and bishops are in heaven or hell doesn't matter. Popes are infallible, not impeccable. They can and have sinned, but they have never taught error.

The Scriptures are not infallible; they are inerrant.
Does that mean the same thing?

√Groovy
 
Upvote 0

Paul S

Salve, regina, mater misericordiæ
Sep 12, 2004
7,872
281
46
Louisville, KY
✟17,194.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Groovy said:
Just a quick question: Can you point me to the verses for this?

Thanks,
√Groove Master
It's in 1 Timothy.

1 Timothy 3:15 said:
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
 
Upvote 0

Groovy

Evangelical Catholic
Aug 4, 2004
978
21
37
Here now, there later.
Visit site
✟16,243.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
thereselittleflower said:
Which needs which? Does the Church need the bible? OR does the bible need the Church as infallible interpreter since it needs to be interpreted by its very nature?

Can we have the Church if we didn't have the bible? Yes Jesus gave us the Church . .

Can we have the bible if we didn't have the Church? No . . for it is the Church who canonized the bible . . not the bible who created the Church.
I believe Michelina addressed this, you can NOT have one without the other.

The Church needs the Bible, it is the Sacred Written Tradition.
The Bible needs the Church, it is the interpreter of the Bible.

Both are equal.
Neither is greater than the other.

√Groovy
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paul S

Salve, regina, mater misericordiæ
Sep 12, 2004
7,872
281
46
Louisville, KY
✟17,194.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Groovy said:
I believe Michelina addressed this, you can NOT have one without the other.

The Church needs the Bible, it is the Sacred Written Tradition.
The Bible needs the Church, it is the interpreter of the Bible.

Both are equal.
Neither is greater than the other.

√Groovy
I'm not sure the Church really needs the Bible. The Bible is a wonderful book, inspired by God, and I'm very grateful God decided to give it to us, but if there were no Bible, the Church could still teach everything in it. There was no Bible for the first few centuries of the Church, and Christianity managed to do just fine.
 
Upvote 0

Carrye

Weisenheimer
Aug 30, 2003
14,049
731
✟29,202.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Paul S said:
There was no Bible for the first few centuries of the Church, and Christianity managed to do just fine.
This is something that is often forgotten. Today the Church holds Scripture and Tradition together, but early Christians only had Tradition.
 
Upvote 0

Groovy

Evangelical Catholic
Aug 4, 2004
978
21
37
Here now, there later.
Visit site
✟16,243.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Paul S said:
I'm not sure the Church really needs the Bible. The Bible is a wonderful book, inspired by God, and I'm very grateful God decided to give it to us, but if there were no Bible, the Church could still teach everything in it. There was no Bible for the first few centuries of the Church, and Christianity managed to do just fine.
:D Bible was being created in those first few centuries.

AND Those Christians/Jews did have the Scriptures, the Law. That is part of the Bible. The only thing they did NOT have was the New Testement. But the NT was being formed in that time, so it was impossible to have until it was completed. So yes, The Church needs the Bible. Without it... I think we know what would happen.

√Groovy
 
Upvote 0

Groovy

Evangelical Catholic
Aug 4, 2004
978
21
37
Here now, there later.
Visit site
✟16,243.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
clskinner said:
This is something that is often forgotten. Today the Church holds Scripture and Tradition together, but early Christians only had Tradition.
Do you remember how many times Jesus quoted passages from Scripture? Do you remember how many times the Jews of the time quoted passages from Scripture? They had the Prophets and the Laws. (Torah)... They had Scripture, and the early church had Scripture.

√Groovy
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Carrye

Weisenheimer
Aug 30, 2003
14,049
731
✟29,202.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Groovy said:
Do you remember how many times Jesus quoted passages from Scripture? Do you remember how many times the Jews of the time quoted passages from Scripture? They had the Prophets and the Laws. (Torah)... They had Scripture, and the early church had Scripture.


Early Christians only had Christ's teachings through Tradition.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.