Sola Scriptura

[steve_bakr]

I have that feeling, too. Scripture is cited by them, but it's for our benefit. That is to say, it is presented to us to show that the authority we believe in has feet of clay and can't be depended upon. Meanwhile, although they say that their Tradition includes Scripture, they couldn't be more dismissive of Scripture most of the time in their posts.

We hear you talking about us, lol. I don't think that I am dismissive of Scripture. I was a Bible Protestant for many years, and a Protestant generally probably for more years than you have been. I'm no Bible theologian, but I have read it cover to cover, and I don't know how many times I've read the NT.

The point is that when I converted to Catholicism, it was not a "dismissal" of Scripture nor was it particularly a refutation of my Protestant faith, but I saw in Catholicism a fuller expression of the Christian faith.

My pre-mystagogy RCIA classes centered on the Sunday's Scripture readings and, as you know, the first part of the Mass is devoted to the readings of Scripture, which often includes on Sundays an OT reading, a reading from the Psalms, a reading from the NT and, finally and always, a reading from the Gospels.

As you also know, the CCC is full of references to the Scripture, along with quotations from the ECF's, the Saints of the Church, etc.

So I think it is unfair to claim that those who believe in the three pillars of sacred Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church are dismissive of Scripture. That's a heavy charge.

As my Deacon was saying last night, it is time enough--after 500 or more years--for Protestants and Catholics to come together over what we DO believe in common.

 

[HisKid1973]

As my Deacon was saying last night, it is time enough--after 500 or more years--for Protestants and Catholics to come together over what we DO believe in common.

AMEN to that. It's all about being reborn in Christ. not the label we carry..

 

[Standing Up]

It's not like, for anyone following this thread, not to know how Tradition contradicts itself. IF one follows Scripture, we wouldn't have that.

 

[Albion]

We hear you talking about us, lol. I don't think that I am dismissive of Scripture. I was a Bible Protestant for many years, and a Protestant generally probably for more years than you have been. I'm no Bible theologian, but I have read it cover to cover, and I don't know how many times I've read the NT. The point is that when I converted to Catholicism, it was not a "dismissal" of Scripture nor was it particularly a refutation of my Protestant faith, but I saw in Catholicism a fuller expression of the Christian faith.

You needn't defend yourself because you were not the particular object of that statement.

So I think it is unfair to claim that those who believe in the three pillars of sacred Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church are dismissive of Scripture.

Maybe those people who post those sentiments ought not do it then. All I know is that they do, and they seem to believe what they are saying.

As my Deacon was saying last night, it is time enough--after 500 or more years--for Protestants and Catholics to come together over what we DO believe in common.

What would he be willing to compromise on for the achievement of that end, I wonder?

 

[steve_bakr]

What would he be willing to compromise on for the acheivement of that end, I wonder?

I think you would like my Deacon. He is very ecumenical. He learned homilitics from a Lutheran pastor who, he says, "Was more Catholic than I am." He was also part of a Catholic delegation that met with a Lutheran delegation, which came to an agreement in principle on works and faith. I don't know if such agreement was officially binding on either Church, but it was done in the spirit of ecumenism.

 

[Albion]

I think you would like my Deacon. He is very ecumenical. He learned homilitics from a Lutheran pastor who, he says, "Was more Catholic than I am." He was also part of a Catholic delegation that met with a Lutheran delegation, which came to an agreement in principle on works and faith. I don't know if such agreement was officially binding on either Church, but it was done in the spirit of ecumenism.

Conversations between the RCC and the Lutherans seem to have been going on for some time now and allegedly have produced results, but I don't know of anything being changed in the real world as a result of them, for some reason. Probably because that only leaves a jillion other things to agree upon.

 

[Thekla]

I think the point needs to be made re: Scripture -

the early Churches received OT texts as Scripture. What they primarily received was the
Septuagint, as that was what was in use throughout the Jewish communities.

The Septuagint was "traditioned/received/handed over" to the earliest Christian communities.

In the present USA, most here have merely received what has been traditioned to them - which is the Masoretic OT. This is a more modern tradition.

It is understandable that modern Christians stick to the Masoretic, as they received it.

However, the Masoretic is not the primarily used text of the NT (as the majority of quotes are from the Septuagint), and clearly the Septuagint is Scripture.
Just as modern Christians accept the entire Masoretic as Scripture, those who received the Septuagint accept the entire Septuagint as Scripture. (Likewise the Ethiopian Church received more, and accept more, etc.)

The modern Christian tradition of Masoretic is up to you, and fine with me.

This more recent tradition (Masoretic) does not render the Septuagint "not Scripture" - as it was traditioned as a whole. The modernist view that it is not all Scripture is selective (and imo silly).

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-Just as modern Christians accept the entire Masoretic as Scripture, those who received the Septuagint accept the entire Septuagint as Scripture. (Likewise the Ethiopian Church received more, and accept more, etc.)-snip-.

So, you're saying P, EO, RC have cut out parts of what you think is Scrpture, the Septuagent, but the EC has not?

 

[Thekla]

So, you're saying P, EO, RC have cut out parts of what you think is Scrpture, the Septuagent, but the EC has not?

Said absolutely nothing of the sort.

The Ethiopians received more and kept more.

The Eastern Orthodox received what they received.

We received the Septuagint as Scripture - all of it - and keep it.

Calling part of the Septuagint "not Scripture" as you did not receive it reflects what you received (the Masoretic, which is shorter and not preferred in the NT). That doesn't make the entire or part of the Septuagint "not Scripture".

 

[Montalban]

One poster had proposed that we all agree on a number of books as some kind of starting point.

I noted that in fact we don't quite do that.

This then has not been continued so I don't know why it was raised in the first place.

The same poster had suggested a rule against some books by showing that they aren't quoted in the NT. I pointed out a number of other books that are equally absent (quote-wise) from the NT. I therefore do not know what this 'rule' is meant to achieve.

I remain perplexed as to these arguments that seem to me to go nowhere

 

[Montalban]

Said absolutely nothing of the sort.

There seems to me to be a persistent effort to turn this discussion into a "Merits of RCC -v- EO" thread

 

[Thekla]

One poster had proposed that we all agree on a number of books as some kind of starting point.

I noted that in fact we don't quite do that.

This then has not been continued so I don't know why it was raised in the first place.

The same poster had suggested a rule against some books by showing that they aren't quoted in the NT. I pointed out a number of other books that are equally absent (quote-wise) from the NT. I therefore do not know what this 'rule' is meant to achieve.

I remain perplexed as to these arguments that seem to me to go nowhere

I don't get it, either.

Why the Masoretic list should be the basis of "agreement", when it is clearly not the preferred source of the NT, doesn't make sense.

And I agree - if quotation in the NT is the "rule" for determining OT Scripture, then a huge portion of the OT should be cut out (from both the Masoretic and Septuagint).

 

[Montalban]

To me, this popular put-down of Sola Scriptura is just a verbal game and nothing serious. HOW we came to identify our source, authority, or guidance system is something completely separate from the WORTH of that item, once available to us. You might as well argue that whatever the paper company tells you to believe is the ultimate answer since, after all, the Bible is printed on paper.

That's not true at all. One can't believe something is authentic unless one knows it's authentic!!!

Unless you're saying that you just said "Oh, I'll believe in this collection 100%" without ever wondering how it came to be???

Is it possible that people have blind-faith in the bible?

 

[Montalban]

.




Steve,


Please consider these points:

This is again a repeat of the norma normans argument without actual discussion on the points of it.

 

[Montalban]

Yes..

Really? So you're saying that the Ecumenical Councils formulae was pointless?

 

[Montalban]

So what is wrong with sticking to the basics? Peter preached Christ and 3,000 were added to the church within one 24 hour period. That same message still goes out today..

Which copy of the NT did he preach from?

If scripture alone is all sufficient why didn't he just hand out copies of that?

 

[Standing Up]

Said absolutely nothing of the sort.

The Ethiopians received more and kept more.

Of what? The septuagent? Or?

The Eastern Orthodox received what they received.

We received the Septuagint as Scripture - all of it - and keep it.

Calling part of the Septuagint "not Scripture" as you did not receive it reflects what you received (the Masoretic, which is shorter and not preferred in the NT). That doesn't make the entire or part of the Septuagint "not Scripture".

There was an Alexandrian and Palestinian version of the Septuagent.

 

[Thekla]

.

1. It really helps to stick with one topic at a time (with the topic of the thread). This thread is not about principles of hermeneutics. Nor is it about arbitration. It's about WHAT is embraced as the rule in the norming of disputed dogmas among us.

There is not a common norm, as the Masoretic and Septuagint differ considerably from each other throughout.

(I personally read the OT using both the Septuagint and Masoretic, the latter translated by a board of Rabbis. There are many variations.)

 

[Thekla]

Of what? The septuagent? Or?

I don't know what the Ethiopians received.

There was an Alexandrian and Palestinian version of the Septuagent.

I'm not sure which one we use.

But this brings up an interesting point on the NT.

The version the EO use is the same we received.

Many modern translations have used more recently discovered Alexandrian texts found in trash dumps. These texts have many misspellings and different verb tenses in some verses (which can change the meaning considerably). Why texts apparently rejected due to scribal error would be considered "superior" seems odd.

 

[Montalban]

.This thread is not about principles of hermeneutics. Nor is it about arbitration. It's about WHAT is embraced as the rule in the norming of disputed dogmas among us. .

The problem with simply re-stating this over and over again occurs when I ask why you adopt this particular method and have yet to get any response other than selective quoting from scripture or the ECFs.

It seems then one simply quite arbitrarily picks this as a method, and it is, because it is, because it is... that method on picks.

If you have any scripture saying one should ONLY refer to scripture that would be a great help