Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura...is there a difference?

[LittleLambofJesus]

What if the Roman Catholics who reject papal infallibility are actually the "real" Roman Catholics or embrace the true Roman Catholic tradition ? Not saying this is the case but they certainly consider themselves Roman Catholics. Who are we as outsiders to tell them that they really aren't?

Far be it from me to tell them they aren't

http://www.christianforums.com/t7532848/
Papal Infallibility ... once again

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Catholic Catechism # 87 describes what a "faithful Catholic" does. Few do. SOME of us - as an act of honesty and integrity - ergo left. Some knowingly stay with a "don't ask, don't tell" philosophy - at best "unfaithful Catholics" or as my deacon put it, either "Cafeteria Catholics" or worse "Protestants hiding in the Church" - both he considered to be the biggest threats to the RCC since Gnosticism.

Sounds rather judgmental, no?

Perhaps. Catholic clergy can be so. But frankly, I think he was right on the mark.




.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Perhaps. Catholic clergy can be so. But frankly, I think he was right on the mark.
.

I agree

 

[Pythons]

If everyone is in charge than no one is in charge...
...Sums it up well.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Aw, that's too bad. And I thought we were just starting to get somewhere... Oh well.

Does that mean we have to start all the way back at the beginning?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

If everyone is in charge than no one is in charge...
...Sums it up well.

On GT it does ehehe

 

[SolomonVII]

What if the Roman Catholics who reject papal infallibility are actually the "real" Roman Catholics or embrace the true Roman Catholic tradition ? Not saying this is the case but they certainly consider themselves Roman Catholics. Who are we as outsiders to tell them that they really aren't?

As a dogma it only goes as far back as 1870, coincidentally the year that the papacy lost the papal states to Italy, and with it any semblance of secular power.

The 35-35-25 split between those who believe, those who don't and those who don't know, don't take into account the nuances involved in the 35 who do....
ie "that the papacy is infallible, except when it isn't and that covers the majority of situations where the pope is acting as a person and not as a part of the Magesterium'...
Or the nuances involved in the actual words of the pope meaning something very different over time than what they first appeared to have meant.

Papal infallibility has all the resemblance of an ecclesiastical institution clinging on to its last vestiges of power, but for most Catholics is hardly relevant to why they are Catholic, which has to do with love of the Catholic culture and timeless traditions and rites more than it does with some obscure dogma that is tangential at best to the essential Christian gospel of love.
From the time that Augustine made that fateful decision that goats be allowed to share the church with the sheep, and that God would sort it out, that is what the Catholic church has been.
Who are the goats, and who are the sheep is very much in the eye of the beholder.

 

[SolomonVII]

If everyone is in charge than no one is in charge...
...Sums it up well.

Freedom is messy, but a whole lo more palatable than totalitarianism.
Scripture itself does not lend itself to infinite different interpretations, and to actually struggle with scripture, and study it involves seeking out the wisdom of the ages which has in itself struggled with all the issues involved not for just years, but for millenia.
This in itself leads to conservatism, and an acceptance of a Judeo-Christian ethic and point of view as the wisdom of the ages sets its own limits and boundaries as to what is possible to believe.

The infinity of views on scriptures does not come from those who actually read and pore over scripture, but is much more a symptom of those who do not read scripture but instead have the world define what scripture really ought to be saying.
Catholics are as progressive and liberal and as wordly and secular as anyone else in that regard.

The sad irony of the fact is that a higher percentage of sola scripture evangelicals accept the conservative morality of Catholic teaching than is the case for Catholics themselves.
Scripture is both sufficient and normative enough to guide everyone into such an understanding on the sanctity of human life, and the sexual morality that maintains that sanctity and the dignity of human life.

 

[Montalban]

I always though that Solo Scriptura was just bad grammar.

So did I. I always had considered that people actually meant sola

 

[Montalban]

If everyone is in charge than no one is in charge...
...Sums it up well.

The sort of Protestantism people here are promoting is more like everyone's interpretation is right.

 

[Noxot]

The sort of Protestantism people here are promoting is more like everyone's interpretation is right.

yes but the alternative is knowing that there is false teachings among us. some people do not want to face that huge problem. and then we have the whole shebang of "i'm right because of this and that" and then the endless arguments about who is right and who is wrong. no wonder why some people just want to leave others be.

and I can see vice and virtues from both of those things.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=SolomonVII;Freedom is messy, but a whole lo more palatable than totalitarianism.

Which is just legislation & enforcement, both of which have demonstrated repeatedly thru history of their impotence in creating anything other than a forced & superficial unity easily & early schismed. Thus multiple orthodoxies.

Scripture itself does not lend itself to infinite different interpretations, and to actually struggle with scripture, and study it involves seeking out the wisdom of the ages which has in itself struggled with all the issues involved not for just years, but for millenia.

It's a false anxiety manufactured by manipulators with their own inner anxieties.

This in itself leads to conservatism, and an acceptance of a Judeo-Christian ethic and point of view as the wisdom of the ages sets its own limits and boundaries as to what is possible to believe.

I find it is generaly an acceptance with at least a few reservations.

The infinity of views on scriptures does not come from those who actually read and pore over scripture, but is much more a symptom of those who do not read scripture but instead have the world define what scripture really ought to be saying.
Catholics are as progressive and liberal and as wordly and secular as anyone else in that regard.

You noticed that too. Then it isn't just me. An "infinity of views" sounds like an impossibility as well as a manufactured fear.

The sad irony of the fact is that a higher percentage of sola scripture evangelicals accept the conservative morality of Catholic teaching than is the case for Catholics themselves.

A lot of people just accept what they are born into, never looking under the rugs or even suspecting anything is being swept under them.

Scripture is both sufficient and normative enough to guide everyone into such an understanding on the sanctity of human life, and the sexual morality that maintains that sanctity and the dignity of human life.

The two greatest commandments are not that intellectualy or emotionaly challenging to understand & accept, yet on them 'hangs all the law & the prophets'.

 

[SolomonVII]

yes but the alternative is knowing that there is false teachings among us. some people do not want to face that huge problem. and then we have the whole shebang of "i'm right because of this and that" and then the endless arguments about who is right and who is wrong. no wonder why some people just want to leave others be.

and I can see vice and virtues from both of those things.

Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome."

Once the arguments stop, then we miss the whole point. Fighting out an answer is what we have been called to do.
Jacob was by all accounts not a great guy. He;d manipulate his brother, and take advantage of his father for the sake of a blessing.
A heel grabber from before he was even born, his ambitions and desires led him to cheat and be cheated n order to get what he wanted. He doted on his one wife and kids, and treated the other hated wife and her kids unfairly, never giving them what was due to them. Then he even tested the loyalty of his favorite Joseph to the point where Joseph got sold into slavery.
And he treated God no differently, fighting all night with him too, in order to wring out a blessing from even him.

And that is who God chose to be our namesake. We are of the House of Israel, of the inheritance of Jacob.
If we are not disagreeing with each other each and every step of the way, maybe it is that we just don't care anymore.

Scripture is meant to be difficult. Struggle is in its very design.

But deferring the struggle to some infallible authority is no shortcut, and no less messy in the end. Inevitably, to the extent that that infallible authority has any real power and influence, he will soon enough find himself in the back pocket of this or that politician who find that kind of thing useful.

When the Word of God burns inside of you, you want to struggle with it. That is the very nature of the faith.

 

[Montalban]

yes but the alternative is knowing that there is false teachings among us. some people do not want to face that huge problem. and then we have the whole shebang of "i'm right because of this and that" and then the endless arguments about who is right and who is wrong. no wonder why some people just want to leave others be.

and I can see vice and virtues from both of those things.

The alternative to everyone being right is having one being right (or everyone being wrong)

I discount the latter because I don't believe Jesus would have left us in confusion

 

[Standing Up]

Once the arguments stop, then we miss the whole point. Fighting out an answer is what we have been called to do.
Jacob was by all accounts not a great guy. He;d manipulate his brother, and take advantage of his father for the sake of a blessing.
A heel grabber from before he was even born, his ambitions and desires led him to cheat and be cheated n order to get what he wanted. He doted on his one wife and kids, and treated the other hated wife and her kids unfairly, never giving them what was due to them. Then he even tested the loyalty of his favorite Joseph to the point where Joseph got sold into slavery.
And he treated God no differently, fighting all night with him too, in order to wring out a blessing from even him.

And that is who God chose to be our namesake. We are of the House of Israel, of the inheritance of Jacob.
If we are not disagreeing with each other each and every step of the way, maybe it is that we just don't care anymore.

Scripture is meant to be difficult. Struggle is in its very design.

But deferring the struggle to some infallible authority is no shortcut, and no less messy in the end. Inevitably, to the extent that that infallible authority has any real power and influence, he will soon enough find himself in the back pocket of this or that politician who find that kind of thing useful.

When the Word of God burns inside of you, you want to struggle with it. That is the very nature of the faith.

We've not come to Sinai, but we have come to Zion after all.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

We've not come to Sinai, but we have come to Zion after all.

Galatian 4:24 which things is an allegory.
For these are the two Covenants, one indeed from mount Sinai into servitude generating whoany is Hagar.
25 For the Hagar mount Sinai is in Arabia, is together-elemental yet to now Jerusalem, slaving/serving tye with the offpsrings of Her.

Hebrew 12:22 But ye have come toward to mount Zion and to a City of God, a living Jerusalem heavenly, and to myriads of messengers,

Revelation 14:1 Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred [and] forty-four thousand, having His Father's name written on their foreheads.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6060454
The Mountain in Matt 21 question

 

[Noxot]

The alternative to everyone being right is having one being right (or everyone being wrong)

I discount the latter because I don't believe Jesus would have left us in confusion

I guess the 144,000 have it right then lol

but it is hard to tell who is part of the 144,000 imo

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Montalban The alternative to everyone being right is having one being right (or everyone being wrong)

I discount the latter because I don't believe Jesus would have left us in confusion

I guess the 144,000 have it right then lol

but it is hard to tell who is part of the 144,000 imo

Me!

....

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And that is who God chose to be our namesake. We are of the House of Israel, of the inheritance of Jacob.
If we are not disagreeing with each other each and every step of the way, maybe it is that we just don't care anymore.

Scripture is meant to be difficult. Struggle is in its very design.

When the Word of God burns inside of you, you want to struggle with it. That is the very nature of the faith.

I feel Paul's bro, Peter, says it best

2 Peter 3:14 wherefore, beloved, these things waiting for, be diligent, spotless and unblameable, by Him to be found in peace,
15 and the long-suffering of our Lord count ye salvation, according as also our beloved brother Paul--according to the wisdom given to him--did write to you,
16 as also in all the epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, among which things are certain hard to be understood,
which the untaught and unstable do wrest, as also the other Writings, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye then beloved, knowing before, take heed! lest together with the error of the impious being led away, ye may fall from your own stedfastness,
18 and increase ye in grace! and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ;
to Him [is] the glory both now and to the day of the age! Amen.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by ortho_cat Well yes, I want to discuss the difference between sola and solo, and whether there is any fundamental difference at all between the two. I would also like to discuss the right to individual interpretation, and how this relates to both as well.

What can I say, i've just been in an SS kind of mood lately...

You got me in that mood now

I always though that Solo Scriptura was just bad grammar.

How so?


....