The War Erupting and Expanding Within Catholicism.

[1Thess521]

Correct; if by this you mean that there is no unified mechanism that can speak for Protestants or Protestantism. This is exactly my point: Protestants are not one in Faith. Each sect does its own thing--and disagrees with the other sect. Each sect thinks they preach the Biblical truth of the Gospel and disagrees with the other sects.

False: there is widespread agreement between Sola Scriptura practicing churches: you will find more agreement of beliefs between 50 Sola Scriptura practicing churches than you in a single pew in a Catholic Church.
Most Sola Scriptura practicing believers would be comfortable in most Sola Scriptura practicing Churches

Let me clarify: it isn't the doctrine of Sola Scriptura that Catholics have a problem with. When you read the statements of the Church and theologians----it isn't the idea that the Bible is the Rule of Faith they are criticizing.

When it comes to Sola Scriptura, based on my reading, what the RCC is actually condemning is the following:

1) That only Scripture is infallible

only Scripture is infallible is part of SS

2) Private Judgement

Private Judgement is not part of SS

3) That the Scriptures alone pass on the Gospel

Scriptures alone pass on the Gospel is not part of SS:
I have orally past on the Gospel to many

 

[romishpopishorganist]

False: there is widespread agreement between Sola Scriptura practicing churches: you will find more agreement of beliefs between 50 Sola Scriptura practicing churches than you in a single pew in a Catholic Church. Most Sola Scriptura practicing believers would be comfortable in most Sola Scriptura practicing

Oh? So a Baptist Sola Scriptura Christian would be comfortable in a Lutheran Church that is Sola Scriptura--where infants are baptized and Baptism is seen as a means of Grace? A Presbyterian Sola Scriptura Christian who believes in Double Predestination would be comfortable in a Methodist Sola Scriptura Church that rejects Double Predestination? A Presbyterian Sola Scriptura Christian that believes Christ is spiritually present in the Lord's Supper would be comfortable in a Baptist Bible Church that believes in a symbolic presence?

I didn't realize Baptists who were founded specifically as a rejection of Baptism and infant Baptism would feel comfortable in Lutheran churches where the very thing they were founded to reject takes place. I didn't realize Double Predestination was irrelevant, nor did I realize that it doesn't matter what you believe about the Lord's Supper so long as you don't believe what Catholics believe.

The fact is this: Sola Scriptura Christians are united on one thing: they are all united on the fact that Catholics are wrong. In the end, they don't care what you believe--so long as you reject Catholicism.

Only Scripture is infallible is part of SS

Private Judgement is not part of SS

Scriptures alone pass on the Gospel is not part of SS: I have orally past on the Gospel to many

[/QUOTE]

You know what frustrates me in dealing with fundamentalists? They are always changing the definition of Sola Scriptura to suit the circumstance.

Who has ultimate authority in your sect? The Church or the individual? In other words------if YOU believe your pastor is teaching something that is not scriptural, do you have the right to sit in judgement of your pastor? Do you have the right to reject what he and or your sect teaches regarding that doctrine?

For Catholics, Private Judgement means that the individual sits in judgement of the Church. The individual does not read Scripture in light of Church teaching, but rather reads Church teaching in light of their individual reading of Scripture. Protestants claim that Sola Scriptura does not deny the authority of the Church. That is all great in theory. In practice this is exactly what it does.

As for passing on the Gospel orally--hooray for you. That isn't what I am talking about, though it is part of it. When I say that the Gospel is passed on along side the Scriptures, I mean through the Tradition of the Church: the worship, culture, prayer and belief of the Church. Those are all mechanisms of Tradition.

 

[1Thess521]

Oh? So a Baptist Sola Scriptura Christian would be comfortable in a Lutheran Church that is Sola Scriptura--where infants are baptized and Baptism is seen as a means of Grace? A Presbyterian Sola Scriptura Christian who believes in Double Predestination would be comfortable in a Methodist Sola Scriptura Church that rejects Double Predestination? A Presbyterian Sola Scriptura Christian that believes Christ is spiritually present in the Lord's Supper would be comfortable in a Baptist Bible Church that believes in a symbolic presence?

I didn't realize Baptists who were founded specifically as a rejection of Baptism and infant Baptism would feel comfortable in Lutheran churches where the very thing they were founded to reject takes place. I didn't realize Double Predestination was irrelevant, nor did I realize that it doesn't matter what you believe about the Lord's Supper so long as you don't believe what Catholics believe.

The fact is this: Sola Scriptura Christians are united on one thing: they are all united on the fact that Catholics are wrong. In the end, they don't care what you believe--so long as you reject Catholicism.

Do Lutherans believe Baptism is salvific ?
I don't think so:
Are Methodist Sola Scriptura?
Not even close:
Change their Book of Discipline about homosexuality and you changed their beliefs.

 

[1Thess521]

You know what frustrates me in dealing with fundamentalists? They are always changing the definition of Sola Scriptura to suit the circumstance.
Who has ultimate authority in your sect? The Church or the individual? In other words------if YOU believe your pastor is teaching something that is not scriptural, do you have the right to sit in judgement of your pastor? Do you have the right to reject what he and or your sect teaches regarding that doctrine?

For Catholics, Private Judgement means that the individual sits in judgement of the Church. The individual does not read Scripture in light of Church teaching, but rather reads Church teaching in light of their individual reading of Scripture. Protestants claim that Sola Scriptura does not deny the authority of the Church. That is all great in theory. In practice this is exactly what it does.

As for passing on the Gospel orally--hooray for you. That isn't what I am talking about, though it is part of it. When I say that the Gospel is passed on along side the Scriptures, I mean through the Tradition of the Church: the worship, culture, prayer and belief of the Church. Those are all mechanisms of Tradition.

oh please
if YOU believe your PRIEST is teaching something that is not Catholic doctrine , do you have the right to sit in judgement of your Priest?
Do you have the right to reject what he and or your Bishop teaches regarding that doctrine?

 

[1Thess521]

You know what frustrates me in dealing with fundamentalists? They are always changing the definition of Sola Scriptura to suit the circumstance.

Try using these descriptions of SS

From Catholic.com
the principle of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone"), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized

from New Advent
"The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice (not the only source)"
" Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible,"

from Wiki
sola scriptura in contrast rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all subordinate authority is derived from the authority of the scriptures, and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not considered an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.

from https://www.reformandamin.org/
The heart of the battle over Sola Scriptura is a battle over the issue of authority. Who has the right to tell people what to believe and what to do? If the Bible is inspired by God, and thereby inerrant, then it is also authoritative. In other words, the revealed commands of God in Scripture are binding on the believer. When Scripture speaks, God speaks. However, during the medieval period, the Catholic Church raised “tradition” to a place of equal authority with Scripture.


from Zondervan Academic:
Sola Scriptura declares that only Scripture is our inerrant, sufficient, and final authority for the church, because it is God breathed and divinely inspired (2 Timothy 3:16). In the sixteenth century, this directly contradicted the teachings of the Catholic Church, which elevated tradition and the Pope and magisterium’s authority to the level of Scripture itself.

from crosswalk
God's word has the highest authority for all of life. This does not mean that the Bible is clear on every issue or question we have—the Bible has little to say on how to speak Spanish or the scientific intricacies of rocket science. However, Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and takes supreme authority over our lives in every area it speaks to. This means that reason, logic, tradition, and experience and valid, but ultimately shall be submitted under scripture as our greatest authority

from Bible info
the Bible alone is the supreme authority for what Christians should believe and practice
etc
etc

Who has ultimate authority in your sect? The Church or the individual?

Scripture

Better far that I should read with certainty and persuasion of its truth the Holy Scripture, placed on the highest (even the heavenly) pinnacle of authority, and should, without questioning the trustworthiness of its statements, learn from it that men have been either, commended, or corrected, or condemned, than that, through fear of believing that by men, who, though of most praiseworthy excellence, were no more than men, actions deserving rebuke might sometimes be done, I should admit suspicions affecting the trustworthiness of the whole “oracles of God.”
-Augustine, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82.2.5

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.
-St. Augustine, quoted from his City of God, book XI, Chapter 3,

 

[mica]

Correct; if by this you mean that there is no unified mechanism that can speak for Protestants or Protestantism.

who said there was? link to the post of a nonC here who posted that.

those you lump under 1 label are a mix of believers and non believers. Why in the world would you ever think they'd be unified?

This is exactly my point: Protestants are not one in Faith.

who said they were? link to the post of a nonC here who posted that all protestants were united in their faith in Christ. catholics are the ones who lump all non catholics under that 1 label.

Each sect does its own thing--and disagrees with the other sect. Each sect thinks they preach the Biblical truth of the Gospel and disagrees with the other sects.

why would you even expect a group of believers to agree with a group of unbelievers? the problem is catholics lumping them all into one group.
that's just another false belief, false teaching of the RCC.

So I would say that my categories do indeed reflect reality. If my "categories" do not reflect reality, what would have to happen in your mind for them to reflect reality?
...

they don't, but they do show how little you know about protestants - believers and unbelievers.

all non catholic unbelievers would have to become believers.

 

[mica]

romishpopishorganist said:
...
You know what frustrates me in dealing with fundamentalists? They are always changing the definition of Sola Scriptura to suit the circumstance.
...

no they don't. catholics don't know or want to know what SS actually means. they are the ones who continually claim it is something that it isn't. but that's no different than them claiming the RCC is His church when it isn't or claiming it teaches the truth of scripture when it doesn't, etc.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Try using these descriptions of SS

From Catholic.com
the principle of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone"), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized

from New Advent
"The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice (not the only source)"
" Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible,"

from Wiki
sola scriptura in contrast rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all subordinate authority is derived from the authority of the scriptures, and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not considered an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.

from https://www.reformandamin.org/
The heart of the battle over Sola Scriptura is a battle over the issue of authority. Who has the right to tell people what to believe and what to do? If the Bible is inspired by God, and thereby inerrant, then it is also authoritative. In other words, the revealed commands of God in Scripture are binding on the believer. When Scripture speaks, God speaks. However, during the medieval period, the Catholic Church raised “tradition” to a place of equal authority with Scripture.


from Zondervan Academic:
Sola Scriptura declares that only Scripture is our inerrant, sufficient, and final authority for the church, because it is God breathed and divinely inspired (2 Timothy 3:16). In the sixteenth century, this directly contradicted the teachings of the Catholic Church, which elevated tradition and the Pope and magisterium’s authority to the level of Scripture itself.

from crosswalk
God's word has the highest authority for all of life. This does not mean that the Bible is clear on every issue or question we have—the Bible has little to say on how to speak Spanish or the scientific intricacies of rocket science. However, Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and takes supreme authority over our lives in every area it speaks to. This means that reason, logic, tradition, and experience and valid, but ultimately shall be submitted under scripture as our greatest authority

from Bible info
the Bible alone is the supreme authority for what Christians should believe and practice
etc
etc

Yeah, thanks for all that. I am not sure what it has to do with my post, but thanks anyway. You see, it does not respond to the points I made.

For example: you said that Sola Scriptura rejects Private Judgement. I argued that on paper, perhaps it does. In practice it does not. Explain to me who has ultimate interpretative authority in your sect: you or the sect.

You also tried to tell me that Sola Scriptura rejects the concept that only the Scriptures pass on the Gospel. The example you cited was that you preach the Gospel orally. However, that does not respond to my point because Sola Scriptura says that only the Scriptures pass on the Gospel INFALLIBLY. You do not believe that Tradition passes on the Gospel infallibly.

As I said: Catholics are fine with the idea of norming Tradition. Thus, the idea that Scriptures are above Church councils, Tradition, etc, has nothing whatever to do with the issue. We aren't claiming that Tradition is on a par with Scripture. Please do not quote from the CCC that says Tradition is received and venerated equally with Scripture and think that this undermines my point.

Catholics RECIEVE Tradition equally with Scripture because of WHAT it passes on; not because of its nature. Catholics know and believe that only Scripture is Theopneustos.

The REAL issues with Sola Scriptura-----is the question of WHO has final teaching authority and interpretative authority. Put another way: when there is a point of dispute, who has the ultimate authority to settle the dispute in your sect? Other Protestants have said "The Scriptures." That isn't an answer. The disagreement is over the Scriptures. So again, who settles the depute in your sect?

Better far that I should read with certainty and persuasion of its truth the Holy Scripture, placed on the highest (even the heavenly) pinnacle of authority, and should, without questioning the trustworthiness of its statements, learn from it that men have been either, commended, or corrected, or condemned, than that, through fear of believing that by men, who, though of most praiseworthy excellence, were no more than men, actions deserving rebuke might sometimes be done, I should admit suspicions affecting the trustworthiness of the whole “oracles of God.”
-Augustine, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82.2.5

Oh, to be sure. Augustine certainly had a very high view of the authority of Scripture. In fact, Augustine's views here are pretty much what all the ECF believed. The statement you quoted from Augustine could be multiplied almost ad infinatum from the ECF. You are quoting Augustine as if what he said here is supposed to be news to me.

The novelty in SS, again, isn't the idea that the Scriptures are the supreme norm. The novelty is that the reformers divorced the Scriptures from the Church and Tradition. For the ECF and for Augustine, they were a unity. Put another way: Augustine and the ECF had not entertained notions that the Church or Tradition would or could teach something outside the Scriptures. I mean the Church taken as a whole. That debate would not happen until around 1300 or so.

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.
-St. Augustine, quoted from his City of God, book XI, Chapter 3,

And?

You know, we could really advance our discussion if you would actually read what I write.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

oh please
if YOU believe your PRIEST is teaching something that is not Catholic doctrine , do you have the right to sit in judgement of your Priest?
Do you have the right to reject what he and or your Bishop teaches regarding that doctrine?

Yes; Catholics disagree with their leaders all the time.

I am talking about when the Church speaks definitively on some point of dispute that effects the universal Church. Once the Church speaks definitively, the matter is settled.

Does your sect believe that the leadership has the authority to speak definitively on matters of dispute and that the members of the sect are to obey? Put another way: does your sect believe that the leadership has the authority to bind your conscience when the decide some matter of controversy?

 

[BJ Bear]

Correct; if by this you mean that there is no unified mechanism that can speak for Protestants or Protestantism. This is exactly my point: Protestants are not one in Faith. Each sect does its own thing--and disagrees with the other sect. Each sect thinks they preach the Biblical truth of the Gospel and disagrees with the other sects.

So I would say that my categories do indeed reflect reality. If my "categories" do not reflect reality, what would have to happen in your mind for them to reflect reality?

With regard to this category, Protestant, I understand why the Papacy chose to anathematize indiscriminately and why using the term as a catch all is fundamental to keeping the myth regarding itself alive among it's followers.

It would be more accurate to cease using it as a catch all phrase. The words Christian, denomination, and sect accurately reflect the relationship of all organized groups of Christians to all other organized groups of Christians throughout the world.

This is the custom presented in the Scriptures. Different congregations wrestled with different errors but they weren't considered to be not part of the church on account of those errors. They were treated as fellow Christians and attempts, sometimes multiple attempts, were made at correction even in severe instances when people's salvation was endangered.

Let me clarify: it isn't the doctrine of Sola Scriptura that Catholics have a problem with. When you read the statements of the Church and theologians----it isn't the idea that the Bible is the Rule of Faith they are criticizing.

Their unstated premise, which you affirm indirectly below, is that it is incomplete to be the sole rule and norm.

When it comes to Sola Scriptura, based on my reading, what the RCC is actually condemning is the following:

1) That only Scripture is infallible

That is too ambiguous for me to respond precisely. Do you mind posting which Canon you have in mind as the basis for that assertion.

Edited to add: Are you sure this isn't in conflict with your point 2 under what Rome can agree upon below?

2) Private Judgement

Agreed, but that is an indirect false claim regarding the lack of perspicuity in the Scriptures regarding the person and work of Christ for all men. When the risen Lord opened the minds of the disciples to understand the Scriptures and what they were to proclaim regarding Him He turned them to the law and the prophets rather than the law and the prophets and an unwritten tradition.

3) That the Scriptures alone pass on the Gospel

The Gospel is by definition objective true good news to and for all men. That means any witness which is contrary to, misrepresents, distorts, or seeks to supplement that objective true good news is by definition not the Gospel.

What the RCC can agree with is:

1) That only Scripture is that which is Theopneustos

It would be helpful if you fleshed out this idea. If what you write is true then the RCC believes that only Scripture is infallible with regard to the person and work of Christ for all men. Otherwise, Papal infallibility rests on something other and less than what is God breathed.

2) Scripture is the Norm of norms without norm.

This looks incomplete and false since according to Trent it can only be rightly understood or normed by the interpretation of the Papal mother church.

3) That the Scriptures are a unique expression of the authority of God. Hence, we agree that there is nothing else like the Scriptures in all of creation. Thus, when Protestants demand that Catholics "produce another God Breathed rule of Faith and that refutes Sola Scriptura" the Protestant is misunderstanding the Catholic position. We are not claiming there is another God Breathed Rule of Faith and never have we claimed that.

The historical Protestants simply assert what is true and don't ask such questions. Paul made it plain in Acts that he was saying only that which was written in the law and the prophets was to come, see Acts 26:22.

4) That dogmas should have Scriptural indications. Note that when Catholics and Protestants disagree on something like the IC for example---the disagreement is on how to interpret certain passages----not whether Scripture should have indications of the doctrine.

Dogmas are fine so long as they remain in the realm of it seems to me or us, but they are not ok when they are represented as the Lord says thus... The former sits in judgement of Scripture and asserting it as anything more is an expression of unbelief.

When you look at the debates on this site, Catholics do provide Scriptural indications for their doctrines. Protestants just disagree with the interpretation Catholics are using or giving the passages which is why they disagree that Scripture teaches the doctrine.

Apart from using the term Protestant in a catch all manner above, disagreements over dogma as defined previously are secondary at best.

Given this, the question isn't "Should Scripture reflect doctrines or dogmas taught by the Church?" The question is "Why is some Protestant scholar, or Protestant individual, or Protestant preacher any better than Rome when it comes to teaching authority?" Saying "Well, because, Rome does not teach what is biblical, they do" is no answer; it is just question begging.

The first question is backwards since dogmas should reflect Scripture. That makes the second question secondary or largely irrelevant since dogmas, what seems to be true to a person or group, are only what seems to be true to a person or group. Passing those off as infallible or the word of the Lord is an unbelieving error.

 

[1Thess521]

Yes; Catholics disagree with their leaders all the time.

I am talking about when the Church speaks definitively on some point of dispute that effects the universal Church. Once the Church speaks definitively, the matter is settled.

Does your sect believe that the leadership has the authority to speak definitively on matters of dispute and that the members of the sect are to obey?

yes: and if I disagree strongly enough, I leave (as I did with Methodism)
It is the same way in Catholicism

Put another way: does your sect believe that the leadership has the authority to bind your conscience when the decide some matter of controversy?

What does "bind your conscience " mean?

 

[Maxtar]

f YOU believe your pastor is teaching something that is not scriptural, do you have the right to sit in judgement of your pastor?

Of course they do. They sit in judgement of the pastor, find him in error and then run out and start their own church.

 

[Mysterium Fidei]

This is nothing more than opinion from a Catholic. I am not claiming this is anything other than opinion. Take it for what it is worth.

Within Catholicism you have two extremes: you have the far left and the far right. The far right and the far left are equally as bad. I say this---even though I would probably agree more than I would disagree with those on the far right about Pope Francis, the direction of the Church since Vatican II and a whole host of other issues about the problems in the Church.

Those on the far left tend to think of the Church as nothing more than a not for profit charitable outreach--albeit divine. They think the Church should be more secular and more Protestant. They think Vatican II was supposed to break from the past and utterly secularize the Church and Protestantize the Church. They tend to reject the authority of the Bible and the authority of the Church, especially as it comes to moral teaching. However, after rejecting the authority of the Bible and the authority of the Church when it comes to moral teaching, they appeal to the very same authority they just rejected when it comes to social issues---and apparently do not see the contradiction.

Those on the far right also see Vatican II as a break from the past but not for the same reasons as those on the far left. Those on the far right tend to conflate the external trappings of Catholicism with Catholicism. Hence, modern churches without plenty of stained glass and statuary are seen as "Protestant." The Mass of Vatican II is likewise "Protestant" because---reasons. Those on the far right for whatever reason tend to see Catholicism as it existed in the 1950's as a golden era. They believe the era is a bench mark, a gold standard, the measure by which all Catholicism should be judged. They tend to think that the Tridentine form of the Mass is the superior form of the Mass--and in fact the only form the Mass should take. The Tridentine Mass certainly had its place and it had its strengthens. However, what the Catholics on the far right fail to understand is that while Jesus instituted the Sacraments, the form the Sacramental celebrations take can change and adapt over time as the need arises.

Now we get to my point: the problem with those on the far right--at least from the perspective of Pope Francis is that they are creating division. It isn't enough for them to live and let live. In other words--they do not see their brand or style of Catholicism as a simple matter of taste. They do not see it as though--"Hey, you know, we like the Old Mass and the old trappings of Catholicism. Thus, we like to go to churches where these things are offered. But we get that not everyone is into this. That is fine. To each his or her own." No; they see their brand of Catholicism as the true expression of Catholicism and they see anyone who does not share their tastes as morally inferior----almost on a par with the likes of Joe Biden. This is why Pope Francis has reacted in the way he did.

Now, I think Pope Francis has over-reacted and created a bigger problem. However, I am just trying to explain why, from my perspective, Pope Francis did as he did.

The "battle" within Catholicism, is a battle between two religions. It is a battle between the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith as it has existed for 2000 years and the new, ecumenical, religiously indifferent religion created by Vatican II.

This battle is illustrated by the battle between the Tridentine Latin Mass, which dates back to the early Church, and the Novus Ordo Missae created by Freemason, Annibale Bugnini, and 6 Protestant ministers at Vatican II.

With Ratzinger's Motu Proprio known as Summorum Pontificum, the availability of the Latin Mass increased with the passage of time. Nearly every diocese had the Latin Mass available in at least one parish or church. Its use was fairly widespread and easily accessible, if you were willing to drive. There were, furthermore, societies, fraternities and institutes which offered the Latin Mass exclusively, or almost exclusively. These were given in many cases something known as a personal parish, that is, a parish organized not on any territorial consideration, but merely on the basis of your willingness to be a member of it.

A phenomenon which accompanied this growth of the Latin Mass was that young people were attracted to it. In fact, the youth were more attracted than the old. The Novus Ordo has miserably failed to attract young people. To the contrary, the Novus Ordo has been very efficacious in corrupting the faith and morals of the youth.

The Latin Mass attracts young people, and not only lay people, but seminarians and young priests. This is an alarming fact for Bergoglio and the other hierarchy of the dying Novus Ordo religion.

The Traditional Latin Mass is an efficacious teacher of Catholic theology concerning the Mass, the priesthood, and the Blessed Sacrament. You cannot say it every day without acknowledging the contradictions between it and the Novus Ordo mass. This revulsion toward the Vatican II reforms happens unconsciously and completely by itself. It is not studied or deliberate. The incompatibility between the two religions, pre- and post-Vatican II, can be heard inside the mind without the slightest doubt and without any effort.

Bergoglio was faced with the “problem” that young priests, seminarians, and young traditional families, were becoming more and more interested in the Latin Mass, and were being “infected” with pre-Vatican II (Catholic) doctrines and morality, and also an abhorrence for Vatican II, its reforms, and the Novus Ordo mass.

This prompted the Pachamama worshiping Bergoglio to act to stamp out this "infection" of Catholicism within his Conciliar religion. This was his motivation to issue his Motu Proprio, laughing entitled Traditionis custodes (Guardians of Tradition).

The effect of this action will hopefully be that many traditional Novus Ordites will realize that this idol worshiping apostate absolutely hates the Catholic religion and can in no way be a true Catholic Pope. Hopefully many of them will leave this false religion and move to traditional Catholicism

 

[balshan]

Oh? So a Baptist Sola Scriptura Christian would be comfortable in a Lutheran Church that is Sola Scriptura--where infants are baptized and Baptism is seen as a means of Grace? A Presbyterian Sola Scriptura Christian who believes in Double Predestination would be comfortable in a Methodist Sola Scriptura Church that rejects Double Predestination? A Presbyterian Sola Scriptura Christian that believes Christ is spiritually present in the Lord's Supper would be comfortable in a Baptist Bible Church that believes in a symbolic presence?

I didn't realize Baptists who were founded specifically as a rejection of Baptism and infant Baptism would feel comfortable in Lutheran churches where the very thing they were founded to reject takes place. I didn't realize Double Predestination was irrelevant, nor did I realize that it doesn't matter what you believe about the Lord's Supper so long as you don't believe what Catholics believe.

The fact is this: Sola Scriptura Christians are united on one thing: they are all united on the fact that Catholics are wrong. In the end, they don't care what you believe--so long as you reject Catholicism.

You know what frustrates me in dealing with fundamentalists? They are always changing the definition of Sola Scriptura to suit the circumstance.

Who has ultimate authority in your sect? The Church or the individual? In other words------if YOU believe your pastor is teaching something that is not scriptural, do you have the right to sit in judgement of your pastor? Do you have the right to reject what he and or your sect teaches regarding that doctrine?

For Catholics, Private Judgement means that the individual sits in judgement of the Church. The individual does not read Scripture in light of Church teaching, but rather reads Church teaching in light of their individual reading of Scripture. Protestants claim that Sola Scriptura does not deny the authority of the Church. That is all great in theory. In practice this is exactly what it does.

As for passing on the Gospel orally--hooray for you. That isn't what I am talking about, though it is part of it. When I say that the Gospel is passed on along side the Scriptures, I mean through the Tradition of the Church: the worship, culture, prayer and belief of the Church. Those are all mechanisms of Tradition.
[/QUOTE]

Please provide evidence of this claim. Post the links to these changing definitions. I haven't read them, I may have missed them, so please enlighten me.

 

[mica]

1Thess521 said:
Try using these descriptions of SS

From Catholic.com
the principle of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone"), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized

from New Advent
"The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice (not the only source)"
" Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible,"

from Wiki
sola scriptura in contrast rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all subordinate authority is derived from the authority of the scriptures, and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not considered an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.

from https://www.reformandamin.org/
The heart of the battle over Sola Scriptura is a battle over the issue of authority. Who has the right to tell people what to believe and what to do? If the Bible is inspired by God, and thereby inerrant, then it is also authoritative. In other words, the revealed commands of God in Scripture are binding on the believer. When Scripture speaks, God speaks. However, during the medieval period, the Catholic Church raised “tradition” to a place of equal authority with Scripture.


from Zondervan Academic:
Sola Scriptura declares that only Scripture is our inerrant, sufficient, and final authority for the church, because it is God breathed and divinely inspired (2 Timothy 3:16). In the sixteenth century, this directly contradicted the teachings of the Catholic Church, which elevated tradition and the Pope and magisterium’s authority to the level of Scripture itself.

from crosswalk
God's word has the highest authority for all of life. This does not mean that the Bible is clear on every issue or question we have—the Bible has little to say on how to speak Spanish or the scientific intricacies of rocket science. However, Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and takes supreme authority over our lives in every area it speaks to. This means that reason, logic, tradition, and experience and valid, but ultimately shall be submitted under scripture as our greatest authority

from Bible info
the Bible alone is the supreme authority for what Christians should believe and practice
etc
etc

Yeah, thanks for all that. I am not sure what it has to do with my post, but thanks anyway. You see, it does not respond to the points I made.

a lot. Is it the post by 1 Thess that you didn't read or understand or was it your own post that 1 Thess replied to that you didn't read or understand? who changes the meaning of SS? catholics do.

this was your post -
romishpopishorganist said:

You know what frustrates me in dealing with fundamentalists? They are always changing the definition of Sola Scriptura to suit the circumstance.

For example: you said that Sola Scriptura rejects Private Judgement. I argued that on paper, perhaps it does. In practice it does not. Explain to me who has ultimate interpretative authority in your sect: you or the sect.
...

how do you know it doesn't? have you practiced it in what you believe? no, you haven't.

It's been explained on here many times that the ultimate authority for believers is God and that includes His word, not that of man. It isn't us or our ministers - it is God's word, yet those are the only 2 choices you put in your post. You didn't even list God and/or His word.

maybe you should start reading other posts on here instead of just your own posts or those that are in reply to your posts.

 

[mica]

Of course they do. They sit in judgement of the pastor, find him in error and then run out and start their own church.

I've left a number of churches over the decades (and teachers) but I didn't 'run out and started my own church'. I have a feeling other believers here have done the same but didn't 'run out' and start their own church either.

what you posted must be another false teaching of the RCC that it drums into its followers. I can't think of anyone I've known personally over the years who left a church because they didn't agree with the minister and went out and started their own church.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

This is the custom presented in the Scriptures. Different congregations wrestled with different errors but they weren't considered to be not part of the church on account of those errors. They were treated as fellow Christians and attempts, sometimes multiple attempts, were made at correction even in severe instances when people's salvation was endangered.

The custom presented in the Scriptures is that the apostles were the leaders of the Church. The apostles ordained successors to continue to lead the communities they founded as they founded communities and started dying off. Their successors ordained successors and through the ages. These successors exist today as the bishops in the RCC.

Their unstated premise, which you affirm indirectly below, is that it is incomplete to be the sole rule and norm.

Scripture is complete to serve as the Norm. But Scripture is a divine collection of books that requires a divinely authorized teacher. Scripture is sufficient to serve as a Norm in the proper hands. It is difficult to use Scripture as a Norm if one does not know how to properly use it.

Certainly many things are clear in the Scriptures, such that an individual could use them to refute error, etc. Not all things are clear, however, and this is why we need a divinely authorized teacher in the form of the Church--with clear leaders with clearly defined roles.

That is too ambiguous for me to respond precisely. Do you mind posting which Canon you have in mind as the basis for that assertion.

What is ambiguous about it? ONLY Scripture is infallible. That is one of the essential claims of Sola Scriptura. Tradition can pass on the Gospel, but it is not infallible. The Church teaches the Gospel but is not infallible. Only Scripture is infallible. And this sounds good on paper. The problem with this is that it makes the Faith unstable. It makes the Faith beholden to scholarship. What the Church believes in one period, the Church might not believe in another period because scholarship may come along and say "You know, based on recent discoveries, or based on recent blah, blah, blah, we have found that the Scriptures actually teach X instead of Y."

Note that this is actually happening in many liberal Protestant sects today. "Scholarship" has found that the Church got it wrong, say these liberals, on homosexuality. Now, we disagree of course. The point is that without a divinely authorized teacher, the Scriptures are beholden to the whims of scholarship. The Church is the pillar of Truth; Scriptures are the Truth, the Church upholds them. The Scriptures and the Church are interrelated. To attack the authority of one is to attack the authority of the other. The Protestant reformers didn't realize this, but we are seeing the fruits today of what happens when you dispense with the authority of the Church. Once you do away with the authority of the Church, it isn't long before you do away with the authority of the Scriptures themselves. When the pillar that upholds Scripture falls--the Scriptures fall with it. You need both.

Edited to add: Are you sure this isn't in conflict with your point 2 under what Rome can agree upon below?

Um, yeah, I am.

Agreed, but that is an indirect false claim regarding the lack of perspicuity in the Scriptures regarding the person and work of Christ for all men. When the risen Lord opened the minds of the disciples to understand the Scriptures and what they were to proclaim regarding Him He turned them to the law and the prophets rather than the law and the prophets and an unwritten tradition.

1) The Catholic claim is not "The Scriptures are unintelligible without the Church." The Catholic claim is not "The Scriptures are unclear." The Catholic claim is that the Scriptures are a divine collection of books that require a divinely authorized teacher. 2) Not everything in the Scriptures are as clear as we might like them to be. For example: Scripture does not clearly condemn abortion. Granted, I believe it is implied in "Thou shall not kill" but in order to believe that--you have to believe a human being beings at conception. Where does Scripture clearly teach that human persons, human life begins at conception? That is just one example. There is much in the Scriptures that are clear--but there is also things that aren't clear. That is a fact.

The Gospel is by definition objective true good news to and for all men. That means any witness which is contrary to, misrepresents, distorts, or seeks to supplement that objective true good news is by definition not the Gospel.

Agreed. The problem isn't that we disagree here. The problem is that we disagree on what "The Gospel" is.

For Protestants, the essence of the Gospel, the heart of the Gospel is Justification by Faith alone. Many Protestants claim that Catholics are not Christian because they do not believe Justification by Faith alone. Protestants even delimit the Scriptures based on Justification by Faith alone. In other words--for some Protestants, that which is Theopneustos teaches in some form Justification by Faith Alone. If it does not in some form teach Justification by Faith Alone, it isn't by definition, Theopneustos. Justification by Faith Alone is like a Gospel within a Gospel. The book of Romans for many Protestants is like a Bible within a Bible.

For Catholics, the heart of the Gospel, the essence of the Gospel is the Incarnation of God. This is why we have a sacramental system, devotion to the saints, intercession of the saints, and basically everything that makes the Catholic Church Catholic.

it would be helpful if you fleshed out this idea. If what you write is true then the RCC believes that only Scripture is infallible with regard to the person and work of Christ for all men. Otherwise, Papal infallibility rests on something other and less than what is God breathed.

Ah! Now we are getting somewhere!

The problem is that Protestants conflate the charism of inspiration with the charism of infallibility. Inspiration is a greater gift, infallibility a lesser gift. God inspired the authors of Scripture in such a way as God is actually the author of Scripture. By definition, God cannot lie and God cannot err. Thus, infallibility flows from the fact of inspiration.

However, the Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth. Church definitions are not inspired, but they are infallible. God graces the Church with the gift of infallibility in order for it to be the pillar and bulwark of Truth. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and this ensures that what the Church teaches is true. Something need not be inspired in order for it to be true.

Think of it like this: RC Sproul says that the Canon of Scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books. The statement is apparently self refuting until you understand what I think he means by it. Sproul essentially believes that the process that lead to the Church clarifying and recognizing the Canon was flawed and thus fallible. However, because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the outcome of the flawed fallible process is guaranteed: the Canon itself is infallible.

Now, extend this logic to everything the Church teaches. The process the Church uses to reach solemn definitions whether by pope or council are flawed and fallible. The arguments used in order to reach the definitions are flawed and fallible. The result, however is infallible--because the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.

This helps us to also understand the difference between inspiration and infallibility: when something is inspired, both the process and the result are infallible. When something is infallible, only the result is guaranteed. The process used to reach the result is not guaranteed. Hence, to say that the Scriptures are inspired and infallible, we are saying that the process in which the Scripters were penned---was itself infallible as was the result. When we say that the Church is infallible but not inspired, we are saying that the process by which the Church uses to reach an end result is fallible and flawed, the result itself, however is infallible because God is guides the Church.

This looks incomplete and false since according to Trent it can only be rightly understood or normed by the interpretation of the Papal mother church.

Correct; but the Church herself is not above the Scriptures. The Church herself, however, is above the individual when it comes to teaching the Scriptures. The Church is a lesser authority than the Scriptures, but a greater authority than the individual. Thus when we speak of the Rule of Faith we make a distinction between the Proximate Rule of Faith and the Remote Rule of Faith. For the individual, the Church is the Proximate Rule of Faith while the Scriptures are the Remote Rule of Faith. For the Church universal, the Scriptures are the Proximate Rule of Faith because the Church draws on the Scriptures for her teaching. Tradition is the living embodiment of the Scriptures in the person of the Church considered at the universal level. This is why the pope when he defined the Assumption of Mary appealed to the Faith of the Church as evidence that the doctrine is revealed.

I will end it there since I have written quite a lot.

 

[balshan]

Of course they do. They sit in judgement of the pastor, find him in error and then run out and start their own church.

We are told to test what we hear. Even you are meant to do so. Personally I have spoken to the pastor about my concerns. Never started a church and have no calling to do so. Another false claim.

1 thess 5

19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil.

1 John 4:1

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Acts 17:11

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.


No we are not to sit and just listen to any old spirit, we are to test and examine (this is a form of judgement) what we are taught.

 

[mica]

...
Scripture is complete to serve as the Norm. But Scripture is a divine collection of books that requires a divinely authorized teacher.

and believers do have a divinely authorize teacher - the One Who inspired it.

The RCC and its followers do not.

Scripture is sufficient to serve as a Norm in the proper hands. It is difficult to use Scripture as a Norm if one does not know how to properly use it.
...

the RCC doesn't know how to use it (and doesn't want to), so its followers don't know either.

 

[RayneBeau]

ONLY Scripture is infallible. That is one of the essential claims of Sola Scriptura.

In 2 Tim. 3: 15-17, the apostle Paul spoke of the 'sacred writings' which make us 'wise unto Salvation!' And, he said that "every one of them is God-breathed," (is inspired by God). The Bible warns us to beware of the uninspired words of men. God's people must not submit to the uninspired words of men. Jeremiah, the prophet said: "thus saith Jehovah of hosts, "Harken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you, they teach you vanity; they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of Jehovah." There once again we can see in the OT this contrast between a message that comes out of the heart of a man and that which comes from the mouth of Jehovah God.