Sola Scriptura

[ebia]

There's no inherent conflict between Apostolic Succession and Sola Scriptura -- as the world and all of us understand the terms.

There are a variety of understandings of each, and not all are compatible.

 

[Albion]

There are a variety of understandings of each, and not all are compatible.

...and maybe I am the only person in existence, with the devil being the cause of me thinking erroneously that you and the rest of the universe exist, assuming that there is a devil.

Gotta run.

 

[SolomonVII]

Yes, and lone wolf also has a kind of tragic-romantic connotation as well.

Hmm.
Since wolves more typically hunt in packs, we might wonder then if it would likewise be considered romantic to refer to say, Catholics , as a pack of wolves?

Romantic, or anti-Catholic? What say you?

 

[Tzaousios]

Hmm.
Since wolves more typically hunt in packs, we might wonder then if it would likewise be considered romantic to refer to say, Catholics , as a pack of wolves?

Romantic, or anti-Catholic? What say you?

Please see my reply to you in post #426. Thanks.

 

[SolomonVII]

One of the meanings of "apostolic church" is the apostolic succession of which the Church is believed to be the inheritor of.

Restricting oneself to Scripture alone is a possible approach and has its merits, but it may not be the fullest approach to Christianity.

I think that is a good point. The ritual of laying on of hands, the physical touch involved, speaks well of a sacramental church, in which the kingdom of God refers not to the ultimate passing of this world of (physical) touch, but the redemption of it, a resoration and re-opening of a new earthly Garden of Eden as it were, where living with God in harmony, atonement, at-One-ment even, becomes possible, here and now, in our world.
The kingdom of God is at hand even now.

There is a sacred trust involved as well in touch, an agreement to fidelity to one another, being of one mind, of one hearto, of one will.. To become of one flesh through touch becomes in a sense adultery when one becomes untrue to the truths that are passed down, apostle to bishop, to bishop. ....

In other words if and when the touch does not signify a passing on of teaching the same, then one must ask who else is laying on the hands and touching the bishops with ideas and dogma and doctrine that clearly have not come from the apostles?

On the one hand, one might say that there is rebellion against the One True Church on behalf of heretics, as in fact was being claimed.
On the other hand, one might say that it is not the apostolic tradition that is being broken with, but that different traditions come about as a result of having someone other than the apostles doing the touching and the ....pawing.

The point of Sola Scripture, I would hope, would be to introduce a little humility back into the discussion between a schismed church, to recognize that adherence to one Tradition or another cannot be the definition of what makes one a heretic. Different traditions cannot be the norm because different traditions have been with the church from the very beginning.

Perhaps it is inevitable that this is so, as the teachings of the twelve interact with the cultural understandings of the varied people that they come into contact with throughout the whole of the known world, even in one generation.

Actually I don't think that you would disagree with me too strongly on that point anyway.

 

[SolomonVII]

Please see my reply to you in post #426. Thanks.

Why would I do that?

The first contact you ever make with me here you insinuate that I am nothing but an anti-Catholic bigot who no doubt gets my ideas from Trail of Blood and other such tracts.
Even before you have any idea of where I come from, this is what you say.

The next time I give you a chance to come clean, and you double down and insist that is exactly what me and the ilk that I associate with are all about.

So what are you trolling for exactly, dropping your line once more for the bottom -feeders around here, of me and my ilk.

Truly you are half right. I am obviously a sucker for even responding to you with this.

You want me to forgive you for your false witness against me?
Fine. Just ask, and I will forget everything that has happened to you.
But if not, I think I have already given you my good-byes.

You are simply not interesting to me.

 

[Tzaousios]

Why would I do that?

Because I took the time to reply to your reply to me. That would be the common courtesy of the forum.

The first contact you ever make with me here you insinuate that I am nothing but an anti-Catholic bigot who no doubt gets my ideas from Trail of Blood and other such tracts.

I cannot help that what you were saying gave me that impression at first. There is so much of it on GT that it is very difficult to parse out who has genuine, informed concerns about church history and interpretation and who is concerned merely to spew anti-Catholic bigotry.

Since you distanced yourself from The Trail of Blood and similar reconfigurations of history, I commend you. Hopefully this line of reasoning will continue.

Even before you have any idea of where I come from, this is what you say.

Naturally, since I neither know you nor remembered how you differ from the crowd at your return from a hiatus for whatever reason. I could only go by what you posted and what I read. Sorry.

The next time I give you a chance to come clean, and you double down and insist that is exactly what me and the ilk that I associate with are all about.

Double down? No, it was the sense that I got from your posts and the fact that you had a following with some members who had shown themselves to be of the stripe mentioned above amen-ing everything that you said.

So what are you trolling for exactly, dropping your line once more for the bottom -feeders around here, of me and my ilk.

No trolling. Don't know what you mean about "bottom-feeders." Perhaps it is just that I ask questions and identify certain presuppositions that some members are not comfortable in confronting or explaining away.

You want me to forgive you for your false witness against me?

If it makes you feel better to define it in those terms and engage in an act of forgiveness, please do so. If it assuages your conscience, then that is good. Hopefully after that we can discuss what is at the root of certain beliefs about church history, institutions, and the reasons for clinging to those beliefs about them.

You are simply not interesting to me.

That is not very charitable. What are you looking for, then, an echo-chamber that tacitly agrees with everything you assert? Validation? Softball Q & A?

 

[Montalban]

We have no such thing in the Catholic Church. All Dogmas have been infallibly defined by the Supreme Pontiff and the true Successors of the Apostles, the Bishops.

... in one particular patriarchy

 

[Montalban]

And neither is Pope, Trinity, Immaculate Conception, etc. etc.

I accept that is so. That's why I don't support sola scriptura

The Trinity relies on the interpretation of scripture in the context of tradition

You've treated us to a point without a point.

Really? You've just shown you've missed it.

Sola scriptura, like all dogma is not itself based on scripture, but tradition.

Only with sola scriptura it is self-defeating in that it's saying "We have a tradition here of not relying on tradition"

 

[steve_bakr]

Hmm.
Since wolves more typically hunt in packs, we might wonder then if it would likewise be considered romantic to refer to say, Catholics , as a pack of wolves?

Romantic, or anti-Catholic? What say you?

How does one smooth things over with you, Sol? Are you searching for a conflict? What I was saying in an earlier post is that we all can be more charitable.

 

[Albion]

I accept that is so. That's why I don't support sola scriptura

or the Trinity or the Immaculate Conception?

 

[Montalban]

[/I]

or the Trinity or the Immaculate Conception?

No.

I just pointed out that I accept that beliefs aren't based only on scripture - however SOLA SCRIPTURA isn't and yet it says everything should be scripture only - it is self-contradicting.

Unless, of course, you can point to where scripture says to only use scripture.

 

[Standing Up]

I don't think that the term lone wolf is meant to portray viciousness, just the idea of being your own interpreter of Scripture without regard to what Catholics call Holy Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church.

Anyway, I don't have a personal problem with your being sS. My wife is sS. It isn't how I view things,but it's not like I want to do battle over it. It is easy for the rhetoric in this kind of conversation to get heated to an inappropriate manner on both sides. We're all Christians and we all love the Lord, which makes us brothers and sisters, and not enemies.

What seems to be lost in this lone wolf rhetoric is the fact that everything presented is actually found in tradition and scripture.

For example, there is a tradition in the church that Mary had children (Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Hegesipius, etc).

There is a tradition that the church observed the 14th (not easter), per Polycarp, Chrysostom who acknowledged it, but didn't practice it, Melito, etc.

There is a tradition that the church promoted the thanksgiving only view of eucharist (Marytrys of Lyons).

So, while lone wolf may evoke images of Paul or Athanasius, the fact is no one around here is "out there on his own", but rather maintains company with the Church of the Living God.

 

[Standing Up]

The chief reasons being that it [SS] is heresy, that it is a doctrine of men which nullifies the word of God, and that is the chief source of division within the Church.

Now there's something to ponder.

 

[Standing Up]

One of the meanings of "apostolic church" is the apostolic succession of which the Church is believed to be the inheritor of.

Restricting oneself to Scripture alone is a possible approach and has its merits, but it may not be the fullest approach to Christianity.

The term was redefined over the centuries from "teach the same" (Paul) to "sacerdotal". We know this because EO and RC believe each other and self is apostolic (sacerdotal), yet they teach contradiction (not apostolic as originally defined).

 

[Standing Up]

You might want to turn down the heat a bit, Brother. We are still in the Vatican II era, whereby we reach out to our Protestant brethren.

That too is worth pondering.

 

[Standing Up]

Please see my reply to you in post #426. Thanks.

Any reply to my last post to you?

 

[Tzaousios]

Any reply to my last post to you?

Give me the link and I will reply.

 

[SolomonVII]

...
That is not very charitable. What are you looking for, then, an echo-chamber that tacitly agrees with everything you assert? Validation? Softball Q & A?

When people lie about who I am, until there is some acknowledgement, there is nothing else to talk about.
It has nothing to do with charity. Without honesty, further talk means nothing at all. It is a waste of time, and I am not interested in wasting time here.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by CrusadersSword The chief reasons being that it [SS] is heresy, that it is a doctrine of men which nullifies the word of God, and that is the chief source of division within the Church.

Now there's something to ponder.

I have heard there is some division within the God's Church, including the RC Denomination. Any truth to that?

http://www.christianforums.com/t1213722/#post13659517
Australian Catholic Church Divided Over Priestly Celibacy

.