The Bible is not a Catechetical Book!

[BBAS 64]

But exactly what Protestants do with Sola Scripture, when one gives an authentic traditional interpretation, that the Church Fathers excepted, the immediate response is:

"No, no, no, it can't mean that, because it just can't because Sola Scripture!"

Good Day,

Care to provide an example....

What do you do with a historical father that disagrees with you or your churches interpretation.

[QUOTE}All of Protestantism leans on Sola Scriptura, both to hide from Catholic interpretations, and, to prop-up their own interpretations.

In regards to your Basil of Ceasarea quote, my only response is, so what?[/QUOTE]

Um the church of rome does not interpret scripture... what they do is produce dogma that they bind to the of their members... name it claim it authority and people buy into it in error.

Raymond E. Brown: Roman Catholics who appeal explicitly to Spirit-guided church teaching are often unaware that their church has seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture, i.e., what the author meant when he wrote it. Most often the church has commented on the on-going meaning of Scripture by resisting the claims of those who would reject established practices or beliefs as unbiblical. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 31.

Even in producing dogma they can and have mishandled scripture, and claimed the dogma to be something it is not:

Ludwig Ott, while commenting on Pius IX’s papal bull Ineffabilis that defined the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary, wrote: “The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage [i.e. Gen. 3:15]. It must be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.” Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., reprinted 1974), p. 200.

Johann Adam Möhler: Catholic theologians teach with general concurrence, and quite in the spirit of the Church, that even a Scriptural proof in favour of a decree held to be infallible, is not itself infallible, but only the dogma as defined. Johann Adam Möhler, Symbolism: Exposition of the Doctorinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their Symbolical Writings, trans. James Burton Robertson (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1997), p. 296.


In him,

Bill

 

[Phil 1:21]

And yet, people still accuse me of a strawman argument.

But exactly what Protestants do with Sola Scripture, when one gives an authentic traditional interpretation, that the Church Fathers excepted, the immediate response is:

"No, no, no, it can't mean that, because it just can't because Sola Scripture!"

All of Protestantism leans on Sola Scriptura, both to hide from Catholic interpretations, and, to prop-up their own interpretations.

Friend, do you still wonder why people accuse you of resorting to strawmen? A debate involves two or more parties presenting facts. Thus far you've promoted a strawman (your incorrect assumption of Sola Scriptura) while ignoring facts presented that correct that strawman. That's not a debate; it's a one-sided declaration of incorrect information -- ironic as that is while promoting the Magisterium.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Good Day,

Care to provide an example....

What do you do with a historical father that disagrees with you or your churches interpretation.

[QUOTE}All of Protestantism leans on Sola Scriptura, both to hide from Catholic interpretations, and, to prop-up their own interpretations.

In regards to your Basil of Ceasarea quote, my only response is, so what?

Um the church of rome does not interpret scripture... what they do is produce dogma that they bind to the of their members... name it claim it authority and people buy into it in error.

Raymond E. Brown: Roman Catholics who appeal explicitly to Spirit-guided church teaching are often unaware that their church has seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture, i.e., what the author meant when he wrote it. Most often the church has commented on the on-going meaning of Scripture by resisting the claims of those who would reject established practices or beliefs as unbiblical. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 31.

Even in producing dogma they can and have mishandled scripture, and claimed the dogma to be something it is not:

Ludwig Ott, while commenting on Pius IX’s papal bull Ineffabilis that defined the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary, wrote: “The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage [i.e. Gen. 3:15]. It must be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.” Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., reprinted 1974), p. 200.

Johann Adam Möhler: Catholic theologians teach with general concurrence, and quite in the spirit of the Church, that even a Scriptural proof in favour of a decree held to be infallible, is not itself infallible, but only the dogma as defined. Johann Adam Möhler, Symbolism: Exposition of the Doctorinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their Symbolical Writings, trans. James Burton Robertson (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1997), p. 296.
In him,
Bill[/QUOTE]
Thanks for providing more of what I was aware of.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Okay, I'm closing down this thread, not because I'm done debating, I have much more to say, but it's better me to end things here, why? Well I reported PeaceByJesus' ad hominem, attack and took a while for it to be taken down, in fact, its still up there. I assume, for the sake of virtue, that it's just taking a long for it to be processed by the mods, however, while I was waiting for the ad hominem attack to be taken down, it just made me mad.

I talked to my priest about this under the Holy Sacrament of Confession, and he suggested that I cut-down on the debating, I'm still going to do my Mother of God debate, but I'm going to take a break in-between this and that upcoming debate.

Sola Scripture has been debunked here, no one has successfully defended it. Yes, I badly worded my opening post, but my argument as been clear, I am not attacking Scriptura Prima, (which itself, opens the door to more than one infallible authority) I am attacking Sola Scriptura, I am not defending Sacred Tradition, or the Magisterium, I am attacking Sola Scriptura! As I've said twice before, this is like, Protestant posting a thread in which he/she attacks a Catholic Dogma, and all the Catholics attacking Protestant beliefs rather than defending the Dogma! No one has proved that Sacred Scripture can stand on its own, no one has proven the Sola Scriptura is Biblical, all the passages sited simply show the Sacred Scripture is infallible, or that Sacred Scripture has some authoritative quality. The fact that you continue to insist on dragging in Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium, -which IS the New Testament Church, your Sola Scriptura view of the Church is a complete fairytale, it's totally fictitious!- as well as, ignore some of my arguments, like the Council of Jerusalem, proves how week and indefensible Sola Scriptura is, you desperately need to have these in the debate, otherwise reality becomes all to clear to you.

You cannot defend Sola Scriptura, it is totally false, it is the way God wished to spread His Holy Gospel. You can go ahead and post whatever comment you wish after this, which will only reinforce everything I've said here, in the end, it will be between you and God, will you finally accept reality? Or will you continue to resist truth and distort His revelations with arguments, that are nothing but stubble and chaff before His Glory?

 

[Phil 1:21]

I talked to my priest about this under the Holy Sacrament of Confession, and he suggested that I cut-down on the debating...

You should listen to your priest...seriously.

 

[Hammster]

ADMIN HAT ON



Closed at OP request.


ADMIN HAT OFF