Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves thier own doctrine?

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by GKC

That is to say, you are not asking anyone to think like a Lutheran, just to understand how (some) Lutherans think.

Sounds familiar.

GKC

It should be the way 'all' Lutherans think, but alas...

Jon

[GKC]

Originally Posted by JonNC

It should be the way 'all' Lutherans think, but alas...

Jon

Same-same some/all Anglicans, which is where I first formulated the phrase.

GKC

[sedonaman]

Originally Posted by JonNC

You know, one of the things I try very hard to do here is listen and understand what Catholics terach, and not try to put my own spin on it. I don't use terms like "sola ecclesia", and things like that.
I put a good faith effort into explaining to you how I understand the Lutheran usage of sola scriptura. And I find your comment dismissive. I am not asking you to agree with our hermeunetics, just to hear and understand our approach.

Jon

Sola scriptura ("Bible alone")

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, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible. In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, "The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants." Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit. The Calvinistic branches of Protestantism went farther in their antagonism to the received traditions than the Lutheran and the Anglican; but all united in rejecting the authority of the pope. [Melanchthon for a while was willing to concede this, but only jure humano, or a limited disciplinary superintendency of the Church], the meritoriousness of good works, indulgences, the worship of the Virgin, saints, and relics, the sacraments (other than baptism and the Eucharist), the dogma of transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass, purgatory, and prayers for the dead, auricular confession, celibacy of the clergy, the monastic system, and the use of the Latin tongue in public worship, for which the vernacular languages were substituted.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

[Contarini]

sedonoman, in principle one should let Protestants say what they believe and not rely on a Catholic source. But in fact it seems to me that the definition you cite from the CE is an accurate one and agrees with what Jon has been saying.

Perhaps you can point to the ways in which it doesn't. (If it doesn't, that doesn't make Jon wrong, for the reason I gave in my first sentence, and also because Lutherans don't speak for all Protestants!)

Edwin

[sedonaman]

Originally Posted by Contarini

sedonoman, in principle one should let Protestants say what they believe and not rely on a Catholic source. But in fact it seems to me that the definition you cite from the CE is an accurate one and agrees with what Jon has been saying.

Perhaps you can point to the ways in which it doesn't. (If it doesn't, that doesn't make Jon wrong, for the reason I gave in my first sentence, and also because Lutherans don't speak for all Protestants!)

Edwin

In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, "The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants."

So I guess it depends on the definition of "sola scriptura". Seems to mean everything except the pope and Magisterium. How silly of me to conclude it means what it term says.

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by sedonaman

So I guess it depends on the definition of "sola scriptura". Seems to mean everything except the pope and Magisterium. How silly of me to conclude it means what it term says.

Yes, it is pretty silly to interpret theological terms in such a simplistic way.

It's the sort of thing I expect from fundamentalists, but Catholics should know better.

The point you're missing is that the "sola" refers to infallible authority.

Edwin

[JonNC]

Perhaps it might be helpful for me to quote the confessions, becasue regardless of what New Advent says, or I say, or even Luther say, the Lutheran Confessions are the basis of Lutheran doctrine.

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

Here it speaks clearly of dogmas, teachers, etc. Additionally, it says nothing of individual interpretation. In terms of doctrine, if I claim to be Lutheran, I cannot, on my own, interpret scripture in a way that contradicts Lutheran doctrine.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

No exclusion of the ECF's, early Church councils, etc. here. They are simply held to account to scripture.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

We pledge ourselves to the Creeds, but even they are not at the level of scripture. That said, there is a recognition of the role of the Church to set doctrine and dogma, to teach. In terms of doctrine, I don't practice sola scriptura, the Lutheran Church does.

The "sola" in sola scriptura is that scripture is sole norm that norms all other writings. There is a difference between holding dogmas and teachers accountable to scripture, and excluding them entirely.

So, for the New Advent piece:

Sola scriptura ("Bible alone")

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,

Close.

and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same,

Not in terms of doctrine, not for Lutherans. For example, my pastor (nor I) can profess via private interpretation, a symbolic presence regarding the Eucharist. The doctrine of the Lutheran Church is the real presence.
We do, however, practice individual interpretation regarding adiaphora, things indifferent. For example, since belief in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is not an article of faith, I can either believe it or not. I happen to, in a general way, believe it.

in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible

The disdinction is clearly stated. Catholics hold scripture and Tradition to be equal sources. We hold Tradtion to be secondary to scripture.

In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, "The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants." .

Irrelevent to Lutherans. We, too, reject this.

Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit

OK.

The Calvinistic branches of Protestantism went farther in their antagonism to the received traditions than the Lutheran and the Anglican; but all united in rejecting the authority of the pope. [Melanchthon for a while was willing to concede this, but only jure humano, or a limited disciplinary superintendency of the Church],

I believe they are, in part referring to Melanchthon's Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, which you can read. http://www.bookofconcord.org/treatise.php It does have some polemics, but the main points are early on.

the meritoriousness of good works, indulgences, the worship of the Virgin, saints, and relics, the sacraments (other than baptism and the Eucharist), the dogma of transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass, purgatory, and prayers for the dead, auricular confession, celibacy of the clergy, the monastic system, and the use of the Latin tongue in public worship, for which the vernacular languages were substituted.

Not exactly accurate for Lutherans. While not nearly enough practiced, we retain auricular confession, and Lutherans can pray for the dead.

Jon

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by sedonaman

So I guess it depends on the definition of "sola scriptura". Seems to mean everything except the pope and Magisterium. How silly of me to conclude it means what it term says.

It is about as silly as protestants saying that, since Catholics worship the Blessed Virgin, they must think she is a Goddess, missing entirely the point that worship could mean hyperdulia, as well as latria.

Jon

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by Contarini

sedonoman, in principle one should let Protestants say what they believe and not rely on a Catholic source. But in fact it seems to me that the definition you cite from the CE is an accurate one and agrees with what Jon has been saying.

Perhaps you can point to the ways in which it doesn't. (If it doesn't, that doesn't make Jon wrong, for the reason I gave in my first sentence, and also because Lutherans don't speak for all Protestants!)

Edwin

And other protestants don't speak for Lutherans.


Thanks, Edwin

Jon

[sedonaman]

Originally Posted by Contarini

...The point you're missing is that the "sola" refers to infallible authority.

Edwin

This is really enlightening. An adverb is now an adjective and a noun. I'm dumber than I thought.

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by sedonaman

This is really enlightening. An adverb is now an adjective and a noun. I'm dumber than I thought.

You're not dumb, just prejudiced and stubborn (and apparently not very well-versed in Latin).

Sola is an adjective, modifying "scriptura."

Grammar has nothing to do with this--this is about context and usage.

I think that the slogan "sola scriptura" (not used by the Reformers themselves) is a flawed one (just as I wish Catholics would drop the term "Co-Redemptrix" even though I understand that what they mean by it is in fact not blasphemous).

But you have no excuse for insisting on interpreting it "literally" instead of looking at how it's actually been used historically.

Just like many Catholics insist on defining all Protestantism based on the word "protest," ignoring the actual historical meaning of the term "Protestant."

Edwin

[JustaServant]

Originally Posted by JonNC

And other protestants don't speak for Lutherans.


Thanks, Edwin

Jon

The point that seems to be being missed is I said in the OP:

Asked this question today to a fundamentalist up in the apologetics playground. He is trying to disprove a Catholic teaching by using the "neutral source" of the Bible.

Not all Protestants are fundamentaliststs. That is why I worded it the way I did.

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by JustaServant

Not all Protestants are fundamentaliststs. That is why I worded it the way I did.

And to the extent that my posts have swerved off the OP, my apology.

Jon

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by JustaServant

The point that seems to be being missed is I said in the OP:



Not all Protestants are fundamentaliststs. That is why I worded it the way I did.

Admirably. But as often happens, the thread swerved away from the OP

[zz912]

Originally Posted by JonNC

Sola scriptura merely says these things are not equal to scripture, when it comes to doctrine. That's all!
Jon

Where does Scripture say that the Church and Tradition are not equal to Scripture? And where does Scripture say that Scripture is the final arbiter of doctrine?