GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind  (Read 23150 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #175 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 13:48:21 »
Perhaps then you can tell us winsome rather than fleeing why as so many catholics have claimed how the catholic church is accountable only to itself?


::baby::

Which Catholic has made this claim, or are you just making up another falsehood about Catholics?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #175 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 13:48:21 »

Visionary

  • Guest
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #176 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 13:48:47 »

Since Protestantism seems to be the target of this thread, who do you think the following scripture represents?

Revelation 2:19  I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.

Revelation 2:22  Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
    
Revelation 17:1  - - Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great wh*re that sitteth upon many waters:
  
Revelation 17:9  And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.  

Revelation 17:18  And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.  

Revelation 18:4  - -  Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Notice above; there are God's people in that evil system.

Revelation 18:7  How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.

Revelation 18:16  And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!
  
Revelation 18:24  And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

In Jesus' name - larry2



The Catholic Church whose head sits in ROME! Of which many from the first page have claimed can never be wrong!

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #176 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 13:48:47 »

Visionary

  • Guest
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #177 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 14:07:15 »
Quote from: acmcccxlviii on September 20, 2010, 09:48:27 AM
  I recently heard a radio broadcast on the "Unbelievable" programme, which is a discussion programme between Christians and other Christians, atheists and those of other religions.  This edition was between a protestant and a catholic.
  One issue which was raised was the central one of whether there was any basis for the principle of Papacy (the situation where one man has absolute authority as the successor of Peter).  As far as I know, the only basis for this is Matt. 16, which tells of Jesus calling Simon "Peter"* and referring to the Rock as the Church.
  Would anyone like to comment as to the relevance and weight of these and/or other scriptures?

* Aramaic: Cephas; Greek: Petros/ Petra; Latin: (I think) Petrus

____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ ____
No there is no basis for Peter having a successor anywhere in scripture. God's promise was to King David and was that he would have a line of kings sit on his throne...of which Jesus was the last now raised to heaven and seated on God's throne at his right hand. Acts 3:25-39
The Catholic church has sorely perverted this promise that Jesus would build his church upon Peter. The truth is God builds his church by this ONE WAY... Romans 10:20 I revealed myself...John 14:21-24

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #178 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 14:41:49 »
Jesus handpicked 12 Apostles and from those 12 He handpicked Peter to be their leader. He was very careful about who was supposed to preach and interpret His word.


Moot.

None of the 12-14 Apostles was ever declared to be infallible, incapable of error or unaccountable.  In fact, if they were, then much of Jesus' ministry was in error since much of it was instructing and correcting them (one of them He even called "Satan"). 

As you know, every one of the 12-14 Apostles is dead.  They have been for a very long time, thus any reference to them is moot for the year 2010.





Quote
Now every clueless person claims to be able to interpret Jesus' word.



Moot.

The Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura) has is not a praxis of hermeneutics, it is a praxis of norming.   Apples and oranges.

IF you have a problem with self designating self as the sole, infallible, authoritative interpreter of Scripture, then take that up with the RCC. It is the only one in all of Christian history and all of Christianity today that does that (apart from the cults).  [Catholic Catechism # 85, etc.). 






Quote
I went to a Methodist Bible study a year ago. Every person there had an opinion they strongly believed about how to read the Bible.


Exactly!  Which is, IMHO, a VERY solid and sound reason to reject the insistence of the RCC that the RCC alone can form an opinion and that whatever it is must just be embraced with docility [Catholic Catechism #87, etc.).   

I agree with you, ALL opinions are fully accountable and should NOT be presumed to be correct because the self same so claims for the self same, which is an EXCELLENT reason to reject the RCC's epistemology here and to embrace accountability - which is the basis of the Rule of Scripture (or as Luther and Calvin called it, "Sola Scriptura").




Quote
it really was the blind (including the minister) leading the blind


IMHO, docilic embrace of whatever one says is at least a case of the blind following......   [Catholic Catechism #87)]   OBVIOUSLY, all that mandate that whatever self alone says be so exempt from accountability and rather just accepted with docility ALSO argue that self alone is correct, but that's true in all cults and was the case (until about a century ago) in the LDS - and I doubt you think those teachers were/are correct, so self designating self as correct and insisting that all give a "pass" on correctness to self alone and just embrace whatever self alone says "with docility" has any relation whatsoever to that self being correct or that the rubric of just embracing whatever that self alone says with docility is sound and wise or have any relation to that teaching being correct.

Check again Catholica...Do you see all those quotes?

Yes, I do, and every single one that is at all related to what you said is from Josiah.  You may be having a hard time understanding the forum and how quotes work.  I have highlighted exactly what was from Josiah above in red.  And keep in mind, when Josiah quotes the Catechism, it is simply his incorrect opinion of what the Catholic Church teaches that he is stating.  Simply because we are called to be docile to our pastors does not imply that the Catholic Church is not accountable.  It is a fallacy that he keeps repeating over and over and over again.  If there ever was an example for the meaning of "ad nauseum" in the dictionary, Josiah's platform rant might have qualified.

The Catholic Church is accountable to God, just as the human persons that God worked through to put to paper what we now call Sacred Scripture were accountable to God.  And when the Catholic Church discerned which books were inspired, which they did, they were accountable to God.   Thankfully Jesus promised them that the Holy Spirit would guide them and remind them of all things, which is a pretty important thing when one is discerning between inspired and uninspired works over a century after the events occurred and all of the original witnesses were dead.

Even if one holds to Sola Scriptura, ultimately it always comes down to the fact that the persons responsible for putting the Biblical books to pen were not accountable to another person, but to God.  Even if one considers a position to be accountable, ulitimately that position is accepted or rejected by a person or set of persons who must use the revelation of God (whether received directly from God or indirectly through the Bible) and are ultimately accountable only to God.  If the "position" were that the Gospel of John is inspired, who discerns whether that position is true or false?  It has to be a person or persons.  And ultimately, they have to make a final decision, and so ultimately it is a person who needs to be accountable, and ultimately they are accountable to only to God, so they must do their best based on what has been revealed to them, the teachings that have been passed down, whether through other accepted scriptures or by word of mouth.  Ultimately though it is not human effort than can discern such a thing, but the decision itself must be guided by the Holy Spirit.   THAT IS WHAT INFALLIBILITY IS.

Another thing that Josiah does is he goes forth with a proclamation that the early Church was not the Catholic Church, basically hinging on the statement that Jesus didn't use the words "Catholic Church" and makes an unsubstantiated statement that the Church that Jesus was speaking to was not the Catholic Church.  In reality, there is nearly insurmountable historical evidence that, in fact, the one Church that Jesus founded, the one that the gates of Hell would never prevail against, would eventually be called the "Catholic Church", and that designation has never changed.

If you can't understand this, or choose to reject it, maybe you just aren't ready for it yet.  Do your own historical research, read the early Church fathers.  I'm sure that you won't because it is basically clear that you care little for what is true, but just for proving that what you already believe to be true, regardless of whether or not it is true or not.  If you care for what is true, then use all your faculties to determine it.  Use history, use logic.  Understand what the early fathers taught.  Compare those things against what the Catholic Church teaches.  I assert that you will find that they are the same.




Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #178 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 14:41:49 »

Visionary

  • Guest
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #179 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 15:25:45 »
Quote from: acmcccxlviii on September 20, 2010, 09:48:27 AM
  I recently heard a radio broadcast on the "Unbelievable" programme, which is a discussion programme between Christians and other Christians, atheists and those of other religions.  This edition was between a protestant and a catholic.
  One issue which was raised was the central one of whether there was any basis for the principle of Papacy (the situation where one man has absolute authority as the successor of Peter).  As far as I know, the only basis for this is Matt. 16, which tells of Jesus calling Simon "Peter"* and referring to the Rock as the Church.
  Would anyone like to comment as to the relevance and weight of these and/or other scriptures?

* Aramaic: Cephas; Greek: Petros/ Petra; Latin: (I think) Petrus

____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ ____
No there is no basis for Peter having a successor anywhere in scripture. God's promise was to King David and was that he would have a line of kings sit on his throne...of which Jesus was the last now raised to heaven and seated on God's throne at his right hand. Acts 3:25-39
The Catholic church has sorely perverted this promise that Jesus would build his church upon Peter. The truth is God builds his church by this ONE WAY... Romans 10:20 I revealed myself...John 14:21-24

Since this also applies to this topic Catholica. Just so you know. I do know how quotes work in forum but it seems you don't know how the word of God works in us through the written scripture.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #179 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 15:25:45 »



Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #180 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 15:31:22 »
Since this also applies to this topic Catholica. Just so you know. I do know how quotes work in forum but it seems you don't know how the word of God works in us through the written scripture.

Are you going to quote somewhere where an actual Catholic says that the Catholic Church is unaccountable then, and not simply Josiah and his claims that the Catholic Church says it is unaccountable?

Visionary

  • Guest
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #181 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 15:40:54 »
Why would I lie about anything Catholica? I saw myself Catholics saying the catholic church is accountable only to itself but I am not going to waste my time looking for those posts.
And I have been watching Josiah and he appears to be an intelligent person not deceived by the little subtle lies and knowledgable in some catholic policies giving references from catholic material that the majority of catholics don't even understand themselves!
Learn how to choose your battles!!! Proverbs 2:1-22

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #182 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 16:03:10 »


Are you going to quote somewhere where an actual Catholic says that the Catholic Church is unaccountable then, and not simply Josiah and his claims that the Catholic Church says it is unaccountable?

.




The RCC itself alone insists that it itself alone is the one authoritative teacher and that it and it itself alone is incapable of error in official matters of faith and morals, and yes it itself alone insists that whatever it so teaches is to be embraced with "docility." 

The RCC itself alone says in the Catechism of itself about itself, "Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms.

Note that the point of the RCC is NOT that the teaching is true or correct, but that it is to be embraced "with docility" because it itself is teaching it. 

The Handbook puts it this way, "The Catholic is thus freed from the typically Protestant issue of whether the teaching is true and rather rests in quiet submission to the Church which is Christ's Authority."  (The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151).   

Note several very, very important things.   

1.  The Catholic is FREED by the RCC alone from the issue of whether the teachings of the RCC are true!!!  The issue isn't truth. 

2.  And "RATHER", in lieu of that issue, in the stead of that issue, in place of that issue, he "rests" in "quiet" (unquestioning, unthinking) "SUBMISSION" (a power word).  The Catechism says, he "receives WITH DOCILITY" whatever the RCC tells them.   

3.  So, yes, the RCC insists that there is one who is exempted from accountability in official matters of faith and morals, one where the issue of truth is moot, one to be given a "pass" on accountability :  itself.  It replaces the issue of whether it is correct with the issue that it itself alone insists that whatever it itself alone teaches is rather just embraced with quiet, docilic submission.

It itself alone thus just by-passes the issue of correctness (in the sole, exclusive, singular case of it itself alone) and replaces it with the insistence of it itself alone for "SUBMISSION" (a power word) to it itself alone.   



Now, a quote from our brother Ryan:



 
Quote from: Ryan2010

.'m merely saying that we are all true to our tradition regardless of whether or not our tradition is actually true.

.


Note, "regardless of whether it is true...."


Now, a quote from you:


Quote from: catholica

"The Catholic Church is and always has been inwardly self-accountable for doctrine."

.



Note:  "INWARDLY, SELF-accountable"    rofl


What has been the Catholics point in all these threads on accountability?  That the RCC alone has some "unique" status, according to the RCC alone, and this makes it EXEMPT from the accountability that it demands for all OTHER techers. 



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #183 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 16:07:53 »
Why would I lie about anything Catholica? I saw myself Catholics saying the catholic church is accountable only to itself but I am not going to waste my time looking for those posts.

The rules on this forum, if I understand them correctly, suggest that people should bring some kind of substantiation for their position.  If you can't substantiate what you say, and refuse to do so, but still believe it, then you have lost any integrity to your argument.  All you are doing is "stirring up trouble" and frankly I am flabbergasted that the moderators have not banned you or warned you or something.

And I have been watching Josiah and he appears to be an intelligent person not deceived by the little subtle lies and knowledgable in some catholic policies giving references from catholic material that the majority of catholics don't even understand themselves!

I'm a Catholic, and let me tell you, I know my faith way better than Josiah knows my faith.  That's what happens when one chooses the path of submission and docility.  Not only do we learn what we believe but also why we believe it.  It is only possible to learn the why if we are actually allowing ourselves to be teachable, and that requires docility.  The only way that our pastors are going to be responsible for our salvation (Hebrews 13:7) is if we ourselves allow them to teach us, and the way we allow them to teach us is to be docile.

Visionary

  • Guest
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #184 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 16:23:26 »
Since you like to argue so much Catholica I have one question for you...

Who is there when you are in the Lord's presence?

Maybe this should be in the riddle box because only those who have been in God's presence will answer correctly.

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #185 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 16:35:19 »

Are you going to quote somewhere where an actual Catholic says that the Catholic Church is unaccountable then, and not simply Josiah and his claims that the Catholic Church says it is unaccountable?

The RCC itself alone insists that it itself alone is the one authoritative teacher and that it and it itself alone is incapable of error in official matters of faith and morals, and yes it itself alone insists that whatever it so teaches is to be embraced with "docility."  

The RCC itself alone says in the Catechism of itself about itself, "Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms. .  

Note that the point of the RCC is NOT that the teaching is true or correct, but that it is to be embraced "with docility" because it itself is teaching it.  

The Handbook puts it this way, "The Catholic is thus freed from the typically Protestant issue of whether the teaching is true and rather rests in quiet submission to the Church which is Christ's Authority."  (The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151).

None of these things say that the Catholic Church regards itself as not accountable.

Note several very, very important things.  

1.  The Catholic is FREED by the RCC alone from the issue of whether the teachings of the RCC are true!!!  The issue isn't truth.  

The Catholic is freed, but he is not forbidden for a person to understand why.  I have done lots of learning about why the Church teaches what it teaches, and I still accept it.

2.  And "RATHER", in lieu of that issue, in the stead of that issue, in place of that issue, he "rests" in "quiet" (unquestioning, unthinking) "SUBMISSION" (a power word).  The Catechism says, he "receives WITH DOCILITY" whatever the RCC tells them.  

Submission is not the same as surrender, but you keep acting like it is.  The Bible says that women are to submit to their husbands as the Church submits to Christ.  Does that mean that women are to simply serve, unquestioning, like automatons?  No.  But if you think so, then no wonder you are not married!  Rather, submission means trusting and accepting and allowing that other person to love you.  Without trust we can't have love.  But a wife has the right to understand why her husband is doing something, and to refuse if it is unjust.   The Catholic Church is not unjust; she is ultimately merciful as Christ is merciful, and is really a pillar of justice in the world today.  That is my experience.

I have already seen others try to explain to you the kinship of the word docility and teachability. They failed because you have to defend your platform at all costs.  But ultimately, being docile is what Jesus tells us to do in Hebrews 13:7.  It doesn't mean unquestioning, as you keep asserting, and it doesn't mean quiet.  Those are words that you have inserted into the text that are simply not there.

87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

3.  So, yes, the RCC insists that there is one who is exempted from accountability in official matters of faith and morals, one where the issue of truth is moot, one to be given a "pass" on accountability :  itself.  It replaces the issue of whether it is correct with the issue that it itself alone insists that whatever it itself alone teaches is rather just embraced with quiet, docilic submission.

Maybe we are just talking past each other.  Maybe you can state clearly, without rhetoric, what exactly passes for "accountability" to you.

Again, you insert the word "quiet" to support your own platform.  The Church doesn't teach that.  Therefore unless you can prove that they do, then from now on you are not simply misinformed, you are knowingly deceiving, and that is an offense against God.

It itself alone thus just by-passes the issue of correctness (in the sole, exclusive, singular case of it itself alone) and replaces it with the insistence of it itself alone for "SUBMISSION" (a power word) to it itself alone.  

Again, St. Paul calls wives to submit to their husbands.  If to a Protestant to "submit" is a "power word" then I am glad I'm not involved in that kind of marriage.

CCC #86 states that:

86  "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."

That means that the Magisterium, which is the teaching office of the Catholic Church, submits itself to Sacred Scripture.  So there is your accountability.

Now, a quote from you:

Quote from: catholica

"The Catholic Church is and always has been inwardly self-accountable for doctrine."

.

Note:  "INWARDLY, SELF-accountable"    rofl

Maybe I chose the wrong word.  I apologize.  It is evident through all historical records that the bishops of the Catholic Church have debated, expounded, and worked together, correcting each other, and with all possible effort, produced doctrine that has been universally accepted.  There is really no other way to run a Church.  Thankfully, the Holy Spirit was promised to this one Church such that they would always be led into all truth and be able to always remember the fullness of revelation and safely propound the true faith.  

Need I post the scriptures again?  One eternal Church, Matthew 16:19, Protected from error, John 14:26, John 16:12-15.

What has been the Catholics point in all these threads on accountability?  That the RCC alone has some "unique" status, according to the RCC alone, and this makes it EXEMPT from the accountability that it demands for all OTHER techers.  

False, that has been YOUR point in all these threads on accountability.  No Catholic really wants to talk about your personal pet peeve issue, which you are incorrect about but since you are neither docile nor humble, you are also not teachable.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #186 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 16:45:30 »
Why would I lie about anything Catholica? I saw myself Catholics saying the catholic church is accountable only to itself but I am not going to waste my time looking for those posts.

The rules on this forum, if I understand them correctly, suggest that people should bring some kind of substantiation for their position.  If you can't substantiate what you say, and refuse to do so, but still believe it, then you have lost any integrity to your argument.  All you are doing is "stirring up trouble" and frankly I am flabbergasted that the moderators have not banned you or warned you or something.

And I have been watching Josiah and he appears to be an intelligent person not deceived by the little subtle lies and knowledgable in some catholic policies giving references from catholic material that the majority of catholics don't even understand themselves!

I'm a Catholic, and let me tell you, I know my faith way better than Josiah knows my faith.  That's what happens when one chooses the path of submission and docility.  Not only do we learn what we believe but also why we believe it.  It is only possible to learn the why if we are actually allowing ourselves to be teachable, and that requires docility.  The only way that our pastors are going to be responsible for our salvation (Hebrews 13:7) is if we ourselves allow them to teach us, and the way we allow them to teach us is to be docile.


You constantly and consistently make my point so clearly.   The RCC requires quiet, docilic submission to itself; that whatever it and it itself teaches (formally, institutionally, in faith and morals) is simply to be embraced and given a 'pass' on the issue of whether such is true/correct.  THAT'S WHY IT REJECTS THE RULE OF SCRITPURE IN THE NORMING OF THE DOCTRINES OF ITSELF (exclusively).  IT demands a "pass" on the issue of whether it's teachings are correct, thus norming is rejected in the sole case of it itself alone, says it itself alone.  You are to be "submissive" to it but it is submissive to nothing but itself.  

 
The RCC itself alone says in the Catechism of itself about itself, "Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms. CCC # 87.  Nothin about it BEING true, only "You just embrace it with docility."  "The Catholic is thus freed from the typically Protestant issue of whether the teaching is true and rather rests in quiet submission to the Church."  (The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151).  As Ryan here put it,  "I'm merely saying that we are all true to our tradition regardless of whether or not our tradition is actually true."  And as you yourself said, ""The Catholic Church is and always has been inwardly self-accountable for doctrine."


Ah, thank you for the powerful confirmations of my point.  While the RCC INSISTS on full, immediate accountability for all OTHER teachers (because Truth matters, God warned us over and over about wrong teachers, and Jesus praised Christians for holding teachers accountable for what they teach), it itself makes one remarkable, absolute, total, stunning exception: ITSELF.  You have been consistently defending this in this thread about accountability and norming BECAUSE it's the whole basis of the RCC's rejection here.  "I demand docilic, quiet SUBMISSION and reject the issue of whether what I say is true - thus, Sola Scriptura is rejected."  You've made your point about why the RCC is exempt from accountability HERE, in THIS thread, becasue that IS the basis of the RCC's rejection of Sola Scriptura.   It's not Scripture it objects to, it's not even accountability it objects to (it practically invented it), it's just that it exempts one from it: itself.






.

Visionary

  • Guest
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #187 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 16:59:03 »
Since you like to argue so much Catholica I have one question for you...

Who is there when you are in the Lord's presence?

Maybe this should be in the riddle box because only those who have been in God's presence will answer correctly.

God bless Josiah. Me thinks they just don't want to know! 1John 5:13

Hebrews 2:8-13
« Last Edit: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 17:10:27 by Visionary »

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #188 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 17:10:30 »
I can't find a book anywhere called "The Handbook of the Catholic Faith".   It certainly isn't an authoritative document.  Its not really worth quoting it or taking it literally.  It seems at best an obscure reference and hardly something you can build a case for the word "quiet" from.  "Quiet" is not in the Catechism.  And the Church simply does not require us to be "quietly" submissive.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #189 on: Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 17:22:34 »

Are you going to quote somewhere where an actual Catholic says that the Catholic Church is unaccountable then, and not simply Josiah and his claims that the Catholic Church says it is unaccountable?

The RCC itself alone insists that it itself alone is the one authoritative teacher and that it and it itself alone is incapable of error in official matters of faith and morals, and yes it itself alone insists that whatever it so teaches is to be embraced with "docility."  

The RCC itself alone says in the Catechism of itself about itself, "Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms. .  

Note that the point of the RCC is NOT that the teaching is true or correct, but that it is to be embraced "with docility" because it itself is teaching it.  

The Handbook puts it this way, "The Catholic is thus freed from the typically Protestant issue of whether the teaching is true and rather rests in quiet submission to the Church which is Christ's Authority."  (The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151).

None of these things say that the Catholic Church regards itself as not accountable.

Note several very, very important things.  

1.  The Catholic is FREED by the RCC alone from the issue of whether the teachings of the RCC are true!!!  The issue isn't truth.  

The Catholic is freed, but he is not forbidden for a person to understand why.  I have done lots of learning about why the Church teaches what it teaches, and I still accept it.


Correct.  The Catholic may ASK for clarifications and seek to better understand.  But note what the Catechism so very, very clearly says, "Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms. CCC # 87.  And from the Handbook,  "The Catholic is thus freed from the typically Protestant issue of whether the teaching is true and rather rests in quiet submission to the Church."  (The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151).  As Ryan here put it, "I'm merely saying that we are all true to our tradition regardless of whether or not our tradition is actually true."

I suspect you understand the reality better than you are hinting (or if you are copy]pasting your points from antoher site, that it better understands this than you seem to be suggesting).  Why is THIS the consistant, powerful, "dig-in-your-heels" Catholic point HERE?  In the discussion of the accountability for the doctrines among us and what best serves as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of these doctrines?  Why HERE all this huge, bold, powerful, consistent emphasis on the POWER of the RCC alone (according to the RCC aloen), the presumed STATUS of the RCC alone (according to the RCC alone), all this emphasis on SUBMISSION to the RCC alone (as demanded by the RCC alone)?  Is it not for one purpose:  To exempt self from the issue?  "All OTHER teachers of doctrine among us are fully, immediately, passionately accountable for what THEY teach, but I myself alone declare that I myself alone am not; that issue is to be laid aside and rather in the case of me, myself and I alone, there is to be quiet, docilic SUBMISSION."  





3.  So, yes, the RCC insists that there is one who is exempted from accountability in official matters of faith and morals, one where the issue of truth is moot, one to be given a "pass" on accountability :  itself.  It replaces the issue of whether it is correct with the issue that it itself alone insists that whatever it itself alone teaches is rather just embraced with quiet, docilic submission

.

Maybe we are just talking past each other.  Maybe you can state clearly, without rhetoric, what exactly passes for "accountability" to you.[/quote]

We've been alll over this. I've defined it, uses various illustrations - all to no avail but the RCC doesn't permit it (in the sole case of itself).

Read what it says.  "Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms. CCC # 87.  The claim is made (over and over and over, for centuries now) that Jesus said to His Apostles, "He who hears you, hears me."  THAT'S what it means by docility. The ENTIRE Catholic epistemolgy is based on SHIFTING the question from the truthfulness of the teaching to the docilic submission to the teacher - essentially by equating self with God.  Read on...

How does it do this?  By stressing (over and over) that Jesus said this to HIS APOSTLES!!!  Then, it itself superimposes its own theory of Apostolic Succession to "connect the dots" to it itself alone.  "Whoever hears the RCC hears Jesus!"  THAT'S the ground of Catholic epistemology.   Of course, there are more than a few problems with that.  1)  It's a falsehood.  Jesus never said that to ANY Apostle.  Ever.  So even if its own theory of Apostolic Sucession were true and even IF it has ANY evidence of such a "chain" back to the Apostles (and such is a pure myth), it would be BASELESS since that was never said to any Apostle; the RCC has been mistating the FACTS for CENTURIES on that point.  2) It would mean that the EO and OO are ALSO unaccountable and incapable of error - thus the RCC would be WRONG to decry all the things it has said about them; in doing so, it is actually denouncing its OWN apologetic.  Of course, there are MANY other obvious problems with it, too.  But the POINT is: self is exempting self from what self demands from all others.   It's ACCOUNTABILITY it rejects in the sole cse of self exclusively and THAT'S why it rejects norming (the evaluating if a position is correct) and ANY norma normans in such ("The Rule of Scripture" - aka Sola Scriptura).




Quote
Again, you insert the word "quiet" to support your own platform.  The Church doesn't teach that.

Verbatim from the Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151.




 




Quote
Need I post the scriptures again?  One eternal Church, Matthew 16:19, Protected from error, John 14:26, John 16:12-15.


Need I point out the OBVIOUS and UNDENIABLE?  

Neither of these verses say ANYTHNG WHATSOEVER about the RCC.

To be inerrantly lead and taught by God does not mandate that we will infallibly follow and learn.  You HAVE read the BIble, right?  Genesis, chapter 3?  how the People of God in the Old Testament were ALWAYS inerrantly lead and taught by God but over and over, they went astray and God held them accountable for that.  There is NOTHING in Scripture that teaches that if God inerrantly leads and teaches, therefore we have no other possibility but to infallibly follow and learn.  You are simply confusing the promise of God to lead and follow with the claims of the RCC, LDS and many cults that self alone infallibily follows and learns.  It seems to always be raied to evade accountability of self.




Quote


What has been the Catholics point in all these threads on accountability?  That the RCC alone has some "unique" status, according to the RCC alone, and this makes it EXEMPT from the accountability that it demands for all OTHER techers

.  

False, that has been YOUR point in all these threads on accountability.  


You've been one of them.  Always countering that the RCC has some special "status" that means whatever it says is just embraced with quiet, docilic submission.  






.

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #190 on: Sat Oct 02, 2010 - 08:04:49 »


Are you going to quote somewhere where an actual Catholic says that the Catholic Church is unaccountable then, and not simply Josiah and his claims that the Catholic Church says it is unaccountable?

.


The RCC itself alone insists that it itself alone is the one authoritative teacher and that it and it itself alone is incapable of error in official matters of faith and morals, and yes it itself alone insists that whatever it so teaches is to be embraced with "docility." 

The RCC itself alone says in the Catechism of itself about itself, "Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms.

Note that the point of the RCC is NOT that the teaching is true or correct, but that it is to be embraced "with docility" because it itself is teaching it. 

The Catholic Church in CCC #86 teaches that it is accountable to all of God's Word, which includes Holy Scripture.  Your claim is false.

The Handbook puts it this way, "The Catholic is thus freed from the typically Protestant issue of whether the teaching is true and rather rests in quiet submission to the Church which is Christ's Authority."  (The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151). 

"The Handbook of the Catholic Faith" is not an official document of the Catholic Church, but I see that you can't find the word "quiet" in the Catechism, just some obscure book, probably from the 50's, that no one reads.  That's what's called a "stretch".  Official Church documents are handled with more scrutiny than a simple summary of teachings produced by someone who is simply part of the Church.  It might even have a Nihil Obstat, or Imprimatur, that doesn't mean that it is infallible.

Note several very, very important things.   

1.  The Catholic is FREED by the RCC alone from the issue of whether the teachings of the RCC are true!!!  The issue isn't truth. 

2.  And "RATHER", in lieu of that issue, in the stead of that issue, in place of that issue, he "rests" in "quiet" (unquestioning, unthinking) "SUBMISSION" (a power word).  The Catechism says, he "receives WITH DOCILITY" whatever the RCC tells them

whatever their teachers and those authority over them teach them, which is what Jesus tells them to do, Hebrews 13:7.  And you know that YOU added the words "unthinking", "unquestioning", and "quiet".  You are manipulating the Church to look like a cult.  But the simple fact is that the Church doesn't teach that.  Josiah, you are deceiving the faithful into believing false things.  If anyone is deceived by you, you will be judged on that.

3.  So, yes, the RCC insists that there is one who is exempted from accountability in official matters of faith and morals, one where the issue of truth is moot, one to be given a "pass" on accountability :  itself.  It replaces the issue of whether it is correct with the issue that it itself alone insists that whatever it itself alone teaches is rather just embraced with quiet, docilic submission.

CCC #86 says that the Catholic Church regards itself as the servant of the Word of God, that which has been revealed, which includes Sacred Scriptures.  It gives itself no pass on accountability.  IN FACT, the Catholic Church counts itself accountable to MORE than what any Protestant Church does:  It is accountable to: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, 21 ecumenical councils (or something like that) as well as all the things it has previously defined as dogma, which are clearly enunciated and available. 

This is how it worked: In the beginning of the NT Church, there was just the Apostles and the OT.  Jesus had come and revealed a ton of stuff to the Apostles and it was all in their heads.  At that point, the New Testament Church and the teachings of Jesus was entirely and completely Sacred Tradition.  Then, some apostles and those that knew them began to write Tradition down, inspired by the Holy Spirit.  They had councils to define doctrine, and those councils were an effort to put forth the teachings of Jesus through the apostles.  Each council solemnly defined doctrine, and each council after that was accountable not only to Scripture and Tradition but to the previous doctrine defined at councils who were also accountable to Scripture and Tradition.  As time went on, the Church kept building in this same way, each time being more accountable to the doctrine that had been defined before that.   Again and again, the Church was accountable and bound by more and more of its solemnly defined doctrine.

Then the Protestant Reformation came, and Martin Luther in particular decided that he was not going to be accountable to seven books of the Old Testament that had always been used as Sacred Scripture by the Catholic Church.  He also decided that he was not accountable to the Councils or the defined doctrine of the Church, and he decided that he was not going to be accountable to Sacred Tradition.  In effect, he severely LIMITED what he decided to be accountable to, and so Sola Scriptura was created.  And now, you are insisting that we be only accountable to sacred scripture, which you proclaim is the only "norma normans".  This is complete nonsense.  Take a look at the state of Protestant beliefs today: it is complete and utter chaos.  The fruit of sola scriptura is complete and utter chaos.

So your "norma normans" doesn't work.  The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and sola scriptura has been eaten and it has led to complete and utter CHAOS.

It itself alone thus just by-passes the issue of correctness (in the sole, exclusive, singular case of it itself alone) and replaces it with the insistence of it itself alone for "SUBMISSION" (a power word) to it itself alone. 

This is just your opinion, but I have now thoroughly demonstrated on how it has no basis in reality.  You are arguing against a complete fantasy of your own creation. 

Now, a quote from our brother Ryan:

Quote from: Ryan2010
.'m merely saying that we are all true to our tradition regardless of whether or not our tradition is actually true.
.

Note, "regardless of whether it is true...."

I love Ryan; he is a very charitable and informed Orthodox brother.  But he is wrong in this one.  The Catholic Church is very concerned with truth, and Sacred Tradition is all true.  It is not "regardless of whether it is true..."  His position does not reflect the position of the Catholic nor the Orthodox Church.  Sacred Tradition is absolutely true.  I think he was trying to illustrate a point, and you decided to take it out of context, which I know that you will continue to do since in practice it seems that you are completely unteachable. 

Now, a quote from you:

Quote from: catholica

"The Catholic Church is and always has been inwardly self-accountable for doctrine."

.

Note:  "INWARDLY, SELF-accountable"    rofl

Already debunked in a previous post, yet again you continue to say it.  If you say it again after this, you are deceiving people with this quote, knowingly, and God will judge you on that too.

What has been the Catholics point in all these threads on accountability?  That the RCC alone has some "unique" status, according to the RCC alone, and this makes it EXEMPT from the accountability that it demands for all OTHER techers. 

No, that is not our point.  That is YOUR POINT, and it is completely FALSE as I have demonstrated by this post.

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #191 on: Sat Oct 02, 2010 - 08:31:23 »
The Catholic is freed, but he is not forbidden for a person to understand why.  I have done lots of learning about why the Church teaches what it teaches, and I still accept it.

Correct.  The Catholic may ASK for clarifications and seek to better understand.

I thought we were to be "unquestioning", "unthinking", and "quiet".  Which is it?  Make up your mind.

I suspect you understand the reality better than you are hinting (or if you are copy]pasting your points from antoher site, that it better understands this than you seem to be suggesting).  Why is THIS the consistant, powerful, "dig-in-your-heels" Catholic point HERE?

I have now posted about the reality.  The Catholic Church defends the whole truth, the whole deposit of faith, which includes scripture but is not limited to that.  That is the Church's job, to be the "pillar and foundation of the truth".  Not the "pillar and foundation of the truth found in scriptures alone".

Quote
Need I post the scriptures again?  One eternal Church, Matthew 16:19, Protected from error, John 14:26, John 16:12-15.

Need I point out the OBVIOUS and UNDENIABLE?  

Neither of these verses say ANYTHNG WHATSOEVER about the RCC.

To be inerrantly lead and taught by God does not mandate that we will infallibly follow and learn.  You HAVE read the BIble, right?  Genesis, chapter 3?  how the People of God in the Old Testament were ALWAYS inerrantly lead and taught by God but over and over, they went astray and God held them accountable for that.  There is NOTHING in Scripture that teaches that if God inerrantly leads and teaches, therefore we have no other possibility but to infallibly follow and learn.  You are simply confusing the promise of God to lead and follow with the claims of the RCC, LDS and many cults that self alone infallibily follows and learns.  It seems to always be raied to evade accountability of self.

Which Church does Matthew 16:19 refer to then?  The Church is called an "IT" not a "THEM".  And the Holy Spirit wasn't promised to lead the Church into all Truth until Jesus came, which negates any argument that errors were made in the OT.  Just because God taught them, doesn't mean they listened.  THIS POINT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH INFALLIBILITY.  We call Popes infallible and still say they sin.  A person's ability to sin and not follow God is completely orthogonal (not related) to their ability to proclaim what has been revealed infallibly.  If it were, then we would have no scriptures, because each book in the Bible is the result of an infallible act, and they were all set to paper by sinful persons.

If you don't know the difference between what infallibility and impeccability is, then you have no business arguing about it.  Sinful persons can still perform infallible acts.  If that were not true, then we have no idea if the Bible is true, because then they were not performing an infallible act, which means that they could be writing error.

Offline Ryan2010

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ Conquers
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #192 on: Sat Oct 02, 2010 - 08:55:10 »
Quote
Now, a quote from our brother Ryan:

.'m merely saying that we are all true to our tradition regardless of whether or not our tradition is actually true.

Note, "regardless of whether it is true...."

I love Ryan; he is a very charitable and informed Orthodox brother.  But he is wrong in this one.  The Catholic Church is very concerned with truth, and Sacred Tradition is all true.  It is not "regardless of whether it is true..."  His position does not reflect the position of the Catholic nor the Orthodox Church.  Sacred Tradition is absolutely true.  I think he was trying to illustrate a point, and you decided to take it out of context, which I know that you will continue to do since in practice it seems that you are completely unteachable.

I appreciate your handling of this as I wasn't aware until later that he was using my words against others in other threads.  

I was making a point by making a blanket statement that covered all traditions.  We adhere to our traditions as if they are true.   Because not every one or "body" can be right, someone is surely wrong.  However, more often than not it seems that people regardless of being corrected will cling to their tradition even if they have no other reason than self preservation.  

ie. I can't believe such and such a teaching or the faith I represent is no longer true or valid and if that is true then I can no longer be what I am defending.  Because I have faith in my tradition I can not accept anything counter to it and so will, using my tradition as a lens through which to confirm or reject "truths", wind up rejecting what very well may be true.  

I was trying to show Josiah that the very things he rails against Catholics for are found within his own tradition and yet is not fixated on those so-called "docile" to themselves over Scripture.  And of course I am not saying that the RCC is "guilty" but that the things we call traditions of men and the whole "self for self or selves" thing etc. are found in every sect, denomination, sub-denomination and individual.  

I wasn't saying that Holy Tradition is not true and I should have phrased it more clearly.  I did try to expound upon what I was saying several times after Josiah attempted to characterize it out of the context but that came to no avail.  It was too late.  He took my intent out of the comment and fashioned it into a weapon with which he used to bludgeon others with and even did so in my name.  

 ::pokingwithstick::

Yikes.

I do apologize to anyone my comment has effected in a way that is counter to the faith even if I did not mean for my comment to be used in such a way.

And I  also appreciate you explaining that such an "idea" would be counter not only to the RCC but also to the Orthodox.  We are accountable to the deposit of the faith and when one of us slips up or says anything counter to it we should be glad to be corrected.   Thank you for saying that I was wrong.  Such a comment out of context or poorly said is wrong.  

Jude 1:23
snatch others from the fire and save them...

1 Timothy 4:16
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

Proverbs 29:15
The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to himself disgraces his mother.



Holy Scripture is not the only "rod" of correction and the reality is that outside of the Church Holy Scripture ceases to be Holy Scripture.  It is only within the context of The Church, not your personal inclinations, that the Holy Scriptures have proper context.


Matthew 18:17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the scriptures church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.




Christ is risen.















« Last Edit: Sat Oct 02, 2010 - 09:02:38 by Ryan2010 »

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #193 on: Sat Oct 02, 2010 - 11:00:20 »


Are you going to quote somewhere where an actual Catholic says that the Catholic Church is unaccountable then, and not simply Josiah and his claims that the Catholic Church says it is unaccountable?

.


The RCC itself alone insists that it itself alone is the one authoritative teacher and that it and it itself alone is incapable of error in official matters of faith and morals, and yes it itself alone insists that whatever it so teaches is to be embraced with "docility." 

The RCC itself alone says in the Catechism of itself about itself, "Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms.

Note that the point of the RCC is NOT that the teaching is true or correct, but that it is to be embraced "with docility" because it itself is teaching it. 

The Catholic Church in CCC #86 teaches that it is accountable to all of God's Word, which includes Holy Scripture.  Your claim is false.


Read # 87.

IF the RCC embraced that what it teaches is potentially wrong then it couldn't say it's incapable of being wrong.
IF the RCC embraced that what it teaches is ACCOUNTABLE to Scripture then it wouldn't reject Sola Scriptura.
IF the RCC embraced that what it teaches is ACCOUNTABLE to Scripture, then it would say in # 87 that all are to recieve with docility what SCRIPTURE teaches, instead, to WHAT are all to be SUBMISSIVE?  It alone itsists:  It's it alone.




Quote
The Handbook puts it this way, "The Catholic is thus freed from the typically Protestant issue of whether the teaching is true and rather rests in quiet submission to the Church which is Christ's Authority."  (The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151). 


Note several very, very important things.   

1.  The Catholic is FREED by the RCC alone from the issue of whether the teachings of the RCC are true!!!  The issue isn't truth. 

2.  And "RATHER", in lieu of that issue, in the stead of that issue, in place of that issue, he "rests" in "quiet" (unquestioning, unthinking) "SUBMISSION" (a power word).  The Catechism says, he "receives WITH DOCILITY" whatever the RCC tells them


3.  So, yes, the RCC insists that there is one who is exempted from accountability in official matters of faith and morals, one where the issue of truth is moot, one to be given a "pass" on accountability :  itself.  It replaces the issue of whether it is correct with the issue that it itself alone insists that whatever it itself alone teaches is rather just embraced with quiet, docilic submission.

CCC #86 says that the Catholic Church regards itself as the servant of the Word of God, that which has been revealed, which includes Sacred Scriptures.  It gives itself no pass on accountability. 

No.  It says a "servant" - not accountable to.  What WHAT is that WORD OF GOD?   It's not Scripture.  It is:

1) The Tradition of ITSELF as defined, chosen and interpreted by ITSELF exclusively.
2) The Scripture NOT in any book or in any words but "written in the heart" of ITSELF as interpreted by ITSELF
3)  The Magisterium of ITSELF as chosen by ITSELF among the clergy of ITSELF pleadged to uphold the teachings of ITSELF.
See a common theme there?  The "Word of God" to which it is a "servant" is the one it sees in the mirror.


 

Quote
So your "norma normans" doesn't work.  The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and sola scriptura has been eaten and it has led to complete and utter CHAOS.

Have you studied the epistemology of the RCC, LDS and the cults?  I think if you do (as I have), you'll see far MORE chaos among those taht exempt self from accountability and instead play the "power card" of "Just embrace whatever I myself alone say with DOCILIC SUBMISSION."   Friend, I agree with my ubercalvinist friend under the Rule of Scripture FAR, FAR more than  the RCC agrees with the LDS under the exemption of self alone from any accountability for what self teaches.




Quote
It itself alone thus just by-passes the issue of correctness (in the sole, exclusive, singular case of it itself alone) and replaces it with the insistence of it itself alone for "SUBMISSION" (a power word) to it itself alone. 


Now, a quote from our brother Ryan: "I'm merely saying that we are all true to our tradition regardless of whether or not our tradition is actually true."  Note, "regardless of whether it is true...."

The Catholic Church is very concerned with truth, and Sacred Tradition is all true. 

The RCC agrees completely with Ryan.  The issue is NOT whether the TEACHING is true but whether the TEACHER is true - the change is from the topic of the correctness of the teaching to the power grab of the teacher, self declaring that self is SO special as to be exempt from the issue of correctness and rather we are to just embraced whatever SELF says "with docilic SUBMISSION." 




Quote
Now, a quote from you:  "The Catholic Church is and always has been inwardly self-accountable for doctrine." Note:  "INWARDLY, SELF-accountable"    rofl

Already debunked in a previous post


Okay.  I think it's "bunk" too.

So, it's accountablility for its doctrines is NOT internal, where/how does this happen?
It it's not a "SELF-accountability," who does it? 
And how does that comply with what the RCC demands that whatever it says is seen as Jesus speaking and jsut go be embraced with docility (CCC 87)?



Quote
What has been the Catholics point in all these threads on accountability?  That the RCC alone has some "unique" status, according to the RCC alone, and this makes it EXEMPT from the accountability that it demands for all OTHER techers. 

No, that is not our point.  That is YOUR POINT, and it is completely FALSE as I have demonstrated by this post.


... then why the constant, endless, perpetual point by the Catholics that the RCC is special, unque, authoritative and whatever it says is to be embraced?  IF your point is not that the RCC is authoritative and thus exempt, why all the point about how the RCC is authoritative and thus accountability doesn't apply?

NOTE the RCC rebuttal to the accountability issue, the rebuttal you have been making so passionately and consistently?  RCC:  "I"m SPECIAL, I'M unique, I don't need no accountability cuz I say I can't be wrong!"  The RCC rebuttal all along as been that the RCC is special, unique. WHY is THAT is sole point?  Because THAT'S why the RCC exempts itself from accountability - it's the whole point of the claim of itself alone for itself alone, to give some basis for substituting docilic SUBMISSION to itself for the accountability it demands of all others.






.

Visionary

  • Guest
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #194 on: Sat Oct 02, 2010 - 11:06:00 »
Proverbs 2:16-19  None who go to her will return or attain the paths of life.


Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #195 on: Sat Oct 02, 2010 - 12:47:19 »
CCC #86 says that the Catholic Church regards itself as the servant of the Word of God, that which has been revealed, which includes Sacred Scriptures.  It gives itself no pass on accountability.  IN FACT, the Catholic Church counts itself accountable to MORE than what any Protestant Church does:  It is accountable to: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, 21 ecumenical councils (or something like that) as well as all the things it has previously defined as dogma, which are clearly enunciated and available. 

This is how it worked: In the beginning of the NT Church, there was just the Apostles and the OT.  Jesus had come and revealed a ton of stuff to the Apostles and it was all in their heads.  At that point, the New Testament Church and the teachings of Jesus was entirely and completely Sacred Tradition.  Then, some apostles and those that knew them began to write Tradition down, inspired by the Holy Spirit.  They had councils to define doctrine, and those councils were an effort to put forth the teachings of Jesus through the apostles.  Each council solemnly defined doctrine, and each council after that was accountable not only to Scripture and Tradition but to the previous doctrine defined at councils who were also accountable to Scripture and Tradition.  As time went on, the Church kept building in this same way, each time being more accountable to the doctrine that had been defined before that.   Again and again, the Church was accountable and bound by more and more of its solemnly defined doctrine.

Then the Protestant Reformation came, and Martin Luther in particular decided that he was not going to be accountable to seven books of the Old Testament that had always been used as Sacred Scripture by the Catholic Church.  He also decided that he was not accountable to the Councils or the defined doctrine of the Church, and he decided that he was not going to be accountable to Sacred Tradition.  In effect, he severely LIMITED what he decided to be accountable to, and so Sola Scriptura was created.  And now, you are insisting that we be only accountable to sacred scripture, which you proclaim is the only "norma normans".  This is complete nonsense.  Take a look at the state of Protestant beliefs today: it is complete and utter chaos.  The fruit of sola scriptura is complete and utter chaos.

So your "norma normans" doesn't work.  The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and sola scriptura has been eaten and it has led to complete and utter CHAOS.

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #196 on: Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 10:29:11 »
Proverbs 2:16-19  None who go to her will return or attain the paths of life.



This is not accurate.

Not all protestants go to Hell.

Visionary

  • Guest
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #197 on: Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 10:58:37 »
The prostitute chester is the roman catholic church. Revelation 17 Proverbs 2:16-19 ... Who has left the partner of her youth/jesus and ignored the covenant she made with God... As your comment towards protestants confirms... you said, I sit as queen, I am not a widow, and I will never mourn... Revelation 18:7

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #198 on: Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 13:04:37 »
Why would I lie about anything Catholica? 

Pride?  Fear?  Evil motives?

There are many reasons why you might lie. 

It is clear that you are not interested in the Truth. 


Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11944
  • Manna: 346
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #199 on: Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 18:49:19 »
So your "norma normans" doesn't work.  The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and sola scriptura has been eaten and it has led to complete and utter CHAOS.
Dang, I thought you were going to say, "indigestion."

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #200 on: Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 19:33:00 »
So your "norma normans" doesn't work.  The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and sola scriptura has been eaten and it has led to complete and utter CHAOS.
Dang, I thought you were going to say, "indigestion."

::smile::

Now that would have required creativity.  I just didn't have it that day. :)

Visionary

  • Guest
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #201 on: Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 20:27:10 »
So you give us the reasons you will lie chester because you have no fear of God. Not realizing you will be brought into judgement for every word and deed whether good or evil. You should know right now that you cannot lie to the Holy Spirit... Acts 5:3-6

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #202 on: Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 10:25:02 »
The prostitute chester is the roman catholic church. Revelation 17 Proverbs 2:16-19 ... 


You may have been taught this lie, so it is not completely your fault.  However, you are so ignorant of history that it is difficult to carry on a rational discussion with you.

Care to prove your assertion?

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #203 on: Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 10:26:17 »
So you give us the reasons you will lie chester because you have no fear of God. Not realizing you will be brought into judgement for every word and deed whether good or evil. You should know right now that you cannot lie to the Holy Spirit... Acts 5:3-6


I won't lie, fear not!

I follow those sent by Jesus.  Who do you follow?  Who teaches you the things you keep repeating? 

Where do you go to Church?

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #204 on: Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 12:21:30 »


Are you going to quote somewhere where an actual Catholic says that the Catholic Church is unaccountable then, and not simply Josiah and his claims that the Catholic Church says it is unaccountable?

.


The RCC itself alone insists that it itself alone is the one authoritative teacher and that it and it itself alone is incapable of error in official matters of faith and morals, and yes it itself alone insists that whatever it so teaches is to be embraced with "docility." 

The RCC itself alone says in the Catechism of itself about itself, "Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms.

Note that the point of the RCC is NOT that the teaching is true or correct, but that it is to be embraced "with docility" because it itself is teaching it. 

The Catholic Church in CCC #86 teaches that it is accountable to all of God's Word, which includes Holy Scripture.  Your claim is false.


IF the teachings of the RCC were accountable to Scripture, then the RCC would be EMBRACING Sola Scriptura since that's what it is, instead, it and the LDS and all the cults are main OPPONENTS of the practice. 

Read your Catechism # 87.  It's right there.  The teachings are not accountable, according to the RCC alone, the teachings of the RCC alone are simply to be embraced with docility, in submission.




Quote
The Handbook puts it this way, "The Catholic is thus freed from the typically Protestant issue of whether the teaching is true and rather rests in quiet submission to the Church which is Christ's Authority."  (The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151)


Note several very, very important things.   

1.  The Catholic is FREED by the RCC alone from the issue of whether the teachings of the RCC are true!!!  The issue isn't truth. 

2.  And "RATHER", in lieu of that issue, in the stead of that issue, in place of that issue, he "rests" in "quiet" (unquestioning, unthinking) "SUBMISSION" (a power word).  The Catechism says, he "receives WITH DOCILITY" whatever the RCC tells them


.

whatever their teachers and those authority over them teach them, which is what Jesus tells them to do, Hebrews 13:7. 


Yes, I know you are trying to support and defend the RCC's insistence that whatever it and it itself along says is exempt from the issue of truth and is rather just to be embraced with quiet, docilic submission.   Thanks yet again for agreeing and confirming my point.  Thus, it's rejection of accountability and ANY norming by ANY norm.  The same is true in the LDS as well as in all the cults.  Same/same.

BTW, the Scripture you referenced doesn't mention the RCC.  For anything.  About anything.  Concerning anything.  In any regard.  No promises.  No authorizations.  No exemptions.  And if it means that we are to give a pass on correctness to all teachers, then you're counsel to the Mormon is to embrace whatever the LDS tells him/her with quiet, docilic submission.




Quote


3.  So, yes, the RCC insists that there is one who is exempted from accountability in official matters of faith and morals, one where the issue of truth is moot, one to be given a "pass" on accountability :  itself.  It replaces the issue of whether it is correct with the issue that it itself alone insists that whatever it itself alone teaches is rather just embraced with quiet, docilic submission

.

CCC #86 says that the Catholic Church regards itself as the servant of the Word of God, that which has been revealed, which includes Sacred Scriptures



1.  Read # 87.  86 has nothing to do with whether what the RCC teaches is accountable or in what sense it's teachings are to be embraced.


2.  You didn't notice WHAT "word."   It is as follows:
* The Tradition of the RCC as chosen, defined and interpreted by the RCC, PLUS
* The Scriptures in the heart of the RCC as interpreted exclusively by the RCC, PLUS
* The Magisterium of the RCC as chosen by the RCC among the clergy of the RCC that have pledged to uphold the teachings of the RCC.
Self looks in the mirror exclusively and solely at SELF.




Quote
So your "norma normans" doesn't work.  The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and sola scriptura has been eaten and it has led to complete and utter CHAOS
.

Let's look at the two major denominations that reject Sola Scriptura and instead insist that whatever self alone says is to be embraced with docility: the RCC and LDS.   Let's compare their teachings using the same rejection of accountability for self alone and the same rubric of self declaring taht whatever self says is what Jesus says.  How much to they agree?  Now, add virtually all the cults to the mix - all of them also embracing the rubric you are defending as less "choatic."  Do you think there is MORE agreement among the RCC, LDS and all the cults than there is among traditional/confessional Lutheranism and Calvinism, both embracing accountability and the Rule of Scripture?   Have you studied the cults and their epistemology?  Have you compared their doctrines under the same rubric that you are defending and the RCC insists upon?   Ah, I suspect (no, I KNOW) that I agree with my ubercalvinist friend FAR, FAR, FAR more than the RCC agrees with the LDS both rejecting accountability of self alone and any rule in any norming of the teachings of self.  The "chaos" my friend is entirely on your side!




Quote


It itself alone thus just by-passes the issue of correctness (in the sole, exclusive, singular case of it itself alone) and replaces it with the insistence of it itself alone for "SUBMISSION" (a power word) to it itself alone. 


Now, a quote from our brother Ryan: "I'm merely saying that we are all true to our tradition regardless of whether or not our tradition is actually true."


Note, "regardless of whether it is true...."


.

It is not "regardless of whether it is true..." 

The Handbook puts it this way, "The Catholic is thus freed from the typically Protestant issue of whether the teaching is true and rather rests in quiet submission to the Church which is Christ's Authority."   (The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151).




Quote


Now, a quote from you: "The Catholic Church is and always has been inwardly self-accountable for doctrine."

Note:  "INWARDLY, SELF-accountable"    rofl


What has been the Catholics point in all these threads on accountability?  That the RCC alone has some "unique" status, according to the RCC alone, and this makes it EXEMPT from the accountability that it demands for all OTHER techers. 


.

No, that is not our point.  That is YOUR POINT, and it is completely FALSE as I have demonstrated by this post.

No.  You have been consistently DEFENDING the point. 






.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #205 on: Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 12:38:45 »
The Catholic is freed, but he is not forbidden for a person to understand why.  I have done lots of learning about why the Church teaches what it teaches, and I still accept it.

Correct.  The Catholic may ASK for clarifications and seek to better understand.  I suspect you understand the reality better than you are hinting (or if you are copy]pasting your points from antoher site, that it better understands this than you seem to be suggesting).  Why is THIS the consistant, powerful, "dig-in-your-heels" Catholic point HERE?


.

I have now posted about the reality.  The Catholic Church defends the whole truth, the whole deposit of faith, which includes scripture but is not limited to that.  That is the Church's job, to be the "pillar and foundation of the truth".  Not the "pillar and foundation of the truth found in scriptures alone"

.


Correct.  It alone exempts it alone from the question of whether it alone is correct in what it teaches.   Thus, it's rejection of accountability for it alone and of all norming for the teachings of it alone - by any norma normans/rule/canon.  Thus, it's rejection of the Rule of Scripture.   You keep confirming my point.




Quote
Quote
Need I post the scriptures again?  One eternal Church, Matthew 16:19, Protected from error, John 14:26, John 16:12-15.


Need I point out the OBVIOUS and UNDENIABLE?  

Neither of these verses say ANYTHNG WHATSOEVER about the RCC.

To be inerrantly lead and taught by God does not mandate that we will infallibly follow and learn.  You HAVE read the BIble, right?  Genesis, chapter 3?  how the People of God in the Old Testament were ALWAYS inerrantly lead and taught by God but over and over, they went astray and God held them accountable for that.  There is NOTHING in Scripture that teaches that if God inerrantly leads and teaches, therefore we have no other possibility but to infallibly follow and learn.  You are simply confusing the promise of God to lead and follow with the claims of the RCC, LDS and many cults that self alone infallibily follows and learns.  It seems to always be raised to evade accountability of self



.

Which Church does Matthew 16:19 refer to then?


YOU are the one say insists it applies specifically, particularly, exclusively, solely to the RCC.   The "ball" in in YOUR court to prove that.....   (You WILL continue to evade that, why?  Because the RCC insists that IT is what IT says it is and you must just embrace that with quiet, docilitic submission - regardless of whether it's true so it's MOOT that Matthew 16:19 says NOTHING about the RCC because accountability doesn't apply to the RCC, insists the RCC alone for the RCC alone.

Here's the reality for all of us who care what the texts says.  It says "you."  Plural, personal.  It doesn't say, "The Roman Catholic Denomination."  



 
Quote
The Church is called an "IT"

Where?


And more to the point, where is the RCC mentioned at all?  For anything?  About anything?  Concerning anything?   In any context?  


Ah, self may claim ANYTHING for self (studied any of the cults?) and if self is unaccountable for such and if the "faithful" just embrace whatever that self says with docility as Jesus speaking, then WHATEVER will be just docilicly embraced, won't it?  Does such have any relationship whatsoever to the issue of whether it's true?




.






Offline webmonk

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Manna: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #206 on: Wed Oct 13, 2010 - 20:47:50 »
That is a complete undergraduate essay at a high level on this matter. I am impressed. May I have your permission to use it for teaching purposes?

 

     
anything