Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind

[Josiah]

The Church, and only the Church, through the help of the Holy Spirit, can legitimately interpret the Bible.

If you want proof for the failure of Sola Scriptura just look at the 500+ Protestant sects, all with widely contradicting dogmas.

If you want proof for the failure of self designating self as the sole authority, sole interpreter, infallible/incapable of error, exempt from norming - and thus REJECTING the Rule of Scripture - then look at the LDS.  

If the Holy Spirit was at work in the Protestants' efforts to interpet the Bible- you wouldn't have all these contradicting dogmas - right?

1.   Moot.  The Rule of Scripture is about the embraced rule in norming.  It's not a hermeneutical principle.  IF you want to talk about principles of hermeneutics (HOW to interpret Scripture), start a thread on that.  This one is about accountability of teachers and specifically WHAT rule/norma normans is most sound for the norming of such.

2.  If it was true that if self proclaims self to the be sole interpreter (as the RCC does in the Catechism of itself, # 85), then the LDS and every single cult in existence would all be correct, wouldn't they?  But do they all agree?   No, thus your point is moot.  

So I guess the title of the OP is correct. The blind (without the Holy Spirit) are leading the blind in Sola Scriptura.

Please document that the Holy Spriit ONLY leads those who claim that He leads only self, and that thus mandates that self alone infallibly follows such lead.  Otherwise, your point is moot.  ANYONE can claim that the Holy Spirit "lead ME" to any conclusion, and ANYONE can claim "I alone am inerrantly lead and I alone infallibly follow."  Without some documentation for such, it's just an egotistical claim and likely just an evasion of acccountability.






.

[Josiah]

Matthew 18

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

Moot. 

It's not about doctrine or hermenteutics or norming.  And it never so much as mentions The Catholic Church (or any other teacher of doctrine)

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Moot.   Jesus never said this to The Catholic Church.  ANYONE from Joseph Smith to Jim Jones to Mary Baker Eddy to you can claim the "you" here applies to self exclusively.  But, of course, it doesn't.  The text tells us who the "you" is and it ain't the RCC.

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Moot.  This is about the resolution of sins against persons, not the norming of doctrines.    And it never so much as MENTIONS the RCC - for or about or concerning anything.





.

[Josiah]

Having said that, I don't blindly follow the Catholic Church's teachings. For example if tomorrow the Catholic Church starts supporting abortion and gay marriage, I'm out. At the end of the day the core values of the Catholic Church are my values

1.  READ your Catechism, # 87.   Note what a Catholic is required to do.  When you joined the RCC, you agreed to this.

2.  You perhaps are what my Deacon called, "A Protestant Hiding in the Church," which he condemned as the greatest danger the Catholic Church has ever faced in all its history.  Such REJECTS the foundation of the Church - that the RCC is the Vicar of Christ, it is infallible and incapble of error in official matters of faith and morals (and that includes the issues you raised), and all are to accept WHATEVER it teaches on such "with docility" - as Jesus Himself speaking (READ your Catechism, #87).  This the "Protestant Hiding in the Church rejects," regarding the Church as at least theoretically CAPABLE of error - and thus CANNOT be Catholic.   He then "sets himself up" at the proper interpreter and proper arbiter - "judge over Christ" (as my Deacon put it).  He is far worse than the heretic, worse than the "Cafeteria Catholic." 

3.  ODD you would say this, because in doing so, you not only are rejecting the found foundation of Catholic epistemology, but you are embracing the foundation of Sola Scriptura - that teachers (none exempted) are ACCOUNTABLE for what is taught - and thus their positions must be normed/evaluated.  You'd do that with the RCC, too - NOT exempting such just because it alone requires that you exempt it alone from such.   Welcome to Protestantism, welcome to norming.   You've rejected the RCC position - and embraced the need for accountability.  Now, WHAT do you think should be the rule/canon/norma normans for that evaluation?  It can't just be "the RCC" because then you are just comparing the RCC with the RCC and you likely don't think that "works" (otherwise, in evaluating the LDS we'd need to see if the LDS agrees with the LDS - which obviously it does - so I suspect you reject that rubric).





.

[stevehut]

READ your Catechism, # 87.   Note what a Catholic is required to do.  When you joined the RCC, you agreed to this.

Yup   

[AvrilNYC]

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.

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.).  

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").

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.


.

It's interesting that you never commend on the Lutheran Churches, but you always show up to trash the Catholic Church. Everytime I urge you to commend on the Lutheran Churches' positions you always disappear - do you have the courage of your Lutheran convictions or just an anti-Catholic obsession??

Why do you always hide when the shameful Lutheran positions are exposed??

[Selene]

1.  READ your Catechism, # 87.   Note what a Catholic is required to do.  When you joined the RCC, you agreed to this.

What's wrong with Catechism #87.  It's the same thing that the Bible is saying. 

Hebrews 13:17  Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you.

[desertknight]

1.  READ your Catechism, # 87.   Note what a Catholic is required to do.  When you joined the RCC, you agreed to this.

What's wrong with Catechism #87.  It's the same thing that the Bible is saying. 

Hebrews 13:17  Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you.

Oh, but that is because the Sola Scriptura crowd really believes in "Sola as my personal opinion of Scriptura dictates", hence the reason why they can abandon the historic Church that Christ founded.

[Josiah]

1.  READ your Catechism, # 87.   Note what a Catholic is required to do.  When you joined the RCC, you agreed to this.

What's wrong with Catechism #87.  It's the same thing that the Bible is saying. 

Hebrews 13:17  Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you.

1.  So, you are supporting and defending the BLIND following of teachers?   Then I suspect you agree that Mormons should blindly follow their teacher, and I suspect you disagree with the plethora of divine warnings about FALSE teachers?  And I suspect you disagree with Jesus when He praised the Ephesian Christians for NOT so doing with their teachers, but for regarding them as accountable, for testing/norming them, and for arbitrating them as FALSE (Rev. 2:2)? 

2.  Thus, you are confirming my point.  The reason why the RCC is opposed to Sola Scriptura is simply because it is opposed to ANY norming by ANY norm/rule in the singular, particular, exclusive case of self alone - demanding instead that whatever self alone says rather just be embraced "with docility?"   

3.  Yo9u may not have noticed that Hebrews 13:17 says NOTHING about the RCC or teachers of the RCC - inclusively, exclusive or otherwise.






.

[Selene]

1.  So, you are supporting and defending the BLIND following of teachers?   Then I suspect you agree that Mormons should blindly follow their teacher, and I suspect you disagree with the plethora of divine warnings about FALSE teachers?  And I suspect you disagree with Jesus when He praised the Ephesian Christians for NOT so doing with their teachers, but for regarding them as accountable, for testing/norming them, and for arbitrating them as FALSE (Rev. 2:2)? 

The Bible doesn't say to follow false prophets or blind teachers.  It says to obey the Church leaders, and the RCC is the Church that Christ built.  It was Christ who built the Roman Church through St. Peter.  This Roman Church is the Roman Catholic Church today.  And that is why we Catholics can trace our lineage back to the Apostle Peter.  Can you trace your lineage to an Apostle?  I don't think so. 

2.  Thus, you are confirming my point.  The reason why the RCC is opposed to Sola Scriptura is simply because it is opposed to ANY norming by ANY norm/rule in the singular, particular, exclusive case of self alone - demanding instead that whatever self alone says rather just be embraced "with docility?"   

The RCC is opposed to Sola Scriptura simply because there is nothing in the Bible that says that we should listen to ONLY the Bible.  For example, see Hebrews 13:17.  It explicitly says to obey the Church leaders.  It did not say to obey ONLY the Bible. 


 

[AvrilNYC]

1.  READ your Catechism, # 87.   Note what a Catholic is required to do.  When you joined the RCC, you agreed to this.

What's wrong with Catechism #87.  It's the same thing that the Bible is saying. 

Hebrews 13:17  Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you.

1.  So, you are supporting and defending the BLIND following of teachers?   Then I suspect you agree that Mormons should blindly follow their teacher, and I suspect you disagree with the plethora of divine warnings about FALSE teachers?  And I suspect you disagree with Jesus when He praised the Ephesian Christians for NOT so doing with their teachers, but for regarding them as accountable, for testing/norming them, and for arbitrating them as FALSE (Rev. 2:2)? 

2.  Thus, you are confirming my point.  The reason why the RCC is opposed to Sola Scriptura is simply because it is opposed to ANY norming by ANY norm/rule in the singular, particular, exclusive case of self alone - demanding instead that whatever self alone says rather just be embraced "with docility?"   

3.  Yo9u may not have noticed that Hebrews 13:17 says NOTHING about the RCC or teachers of the RCC - inclusively, exclusive or otherwise.


.

Josiah,

When it comes to understanding the Bible on you own you, and every other mere mortal sinner, are blind. Christ is the head of the Church. Following the Church = Following Christ

[Josiah]

1.  So, you are supporting and defending the BLIND following of teachers?   Then I suspect you agree that Mormons should blindly follow their teacher, and I suspect you disagree with the plethora of divine warnings about FALSE teachers?  And I suspect you disagree with Jesus when He praised the Ephesian Christians for NOT so doing with their teachers, but for regarding them as accountable, for testing/norming them, and for arbitrating them as FALSE (Rev. 2:2)?  

The Bible doesn't say to follow false prophets or blind teachers.

EXACTLY!  Therefore, it MATTERS if they are right or wrong!   I think you are BEGINNING to appreciate the first point in this discussion:  does it matter if a teacher is correct or not?  Are they accountable for what they teach?

It says to obey the Church leaders

1.  See above.  You can't have it both ways (unless you insist that any teacher claiming to be right MUST be embraced as such).

2.  You may note that the verse does not mention the RCC.  

And that is why we Catholics can trace our lineage back to the Apostle Peter.  Can you trace your lineage to an Apostle?  I don't think so.  

1.   Where does it say that Peter was unaccountable?  Didn't Jesus call him "Satan?"  Didn't Jesus hold him accountable, and even correct him on numerous occasions?   Did you know that Peter is dead (and he has been died for quite some time)?  

2.  Actually, there are virtually no contemporary records of ANY ordinations before the 4th century, the result is that NO ONE ON THE PLANET can "trace" their "lineage" to any Apostle.   I realize, some Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran pastors have "family trees" of ordinations going back to one of the 12, but as we all know, AT LEAST for the first 300 years, these are pure retroactively created fantasy without a SHRED of ANYTHING to confirm it (such is not POSSIBLE, again, there are no contemporary records of all ordinations during that time - and precious few such contemporary records for some time after) - it's all pure fantasy.   My own priest VOLUTEERED such.  In referring to his "lineage," he said (and I quote), "It's more a matter of faith than history."  Yup.  

3.  So what?  Where did Jesus (or anything or anyone) ever claim that everyone that can trace their "lineage" back to one of the 12 (and, OF COURSE, none can) is infallible, unaccountable, and incapable of error?  

4.  You seem to be going to some lengths to try to justify that we SHOULD be blind.   You are confirming my point.  The reason why the RCC is opposed to Sola Scriptura is simply because it is opposed to ANY norming by ANY norm/rule in the singular, particular, exclusive case of self alone - demanding instead that whatever self alone says rather just be embraced "with docility?"  



  


.

[Josiah]

READ your Catechism, # 87.   Note what a Catholic is required to do.  When you joined the RCC, you agreed to this.



1.  So, you are supporting and defending the BLIND following of teachers?   Then I suspect you agree that Mormons should blindly follow their teacher, and I suspect you disagree with the plethora of divine warnings about FALSE teachers?  And I suspect you disagree with Jesus when He praised the Ephesian Christians for NOT so doing with their teachers, but for regarding them as accountable, for testing/norming them, and for arbitrating them as FALSE (Rev. 2:2)?  

2.  Thus, you are confirming my point.  The reason why the RCC is opposed to Sola Scriptura is simply because it is opposed to ANY norming by ANY norm/rule in the singular, particular, exclusive case of self alone - demanding instead that whatever self alone says rather just be embraced "with docility?"  

3.  You may not have noticed that Hebrews 13:17 says NOTHING about the RCC or teachers of the RCC - inclusively, exclusive or otherwise.


.

Josiah,

When it comes to understanding the Bible on you own you, and every other mere mortal sinner, are blind.

Okay.  Then so is every priest, bishop, archbishop and pope in the RCC because they are all "mere mortal sinners."  Thus, why do you blindly follow ('with docility') what you believe are the blind?   Isn't THAT "blindly following the blind?"  


   








For Selene (so that we are discussing the same thing).....


Sola Scriptura



The Official, Historic Definition:


"The Scriptures serve as the sole rule and norm of all doctrine" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (Ditto, 3).


"The Latin expression "sola scriptura" refers to the function of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church." (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)


Sola Scriptura IS....


An embrace of God's inerrent, holy, written word as the final "Rule" (staight edge) or "Canon" (measuring stick) or "norma normans" to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.


Sola Scriptura is NOT....


1. Doctrine. It's praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Here is the Catholic position: "The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as God wished." Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it's praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God's inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.

2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It's not hermeneutics, it's norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by establishing the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.

3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura "existed" just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the "size" of the Scripture was smaller. Christians (excluding Mormons) believe that the "canon" (authoritative books of Scripture) is closed so this is now a moot issue (except, perhaps, for the largely moot DEUTEROcanonical books about which there is no consensus but since no dogma comes from such anyway, it's moot to the praxis).

4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) join the RCC in embracing private, individual arbitration (although rarely as radically or as extreme as the RCC does). This is called "private arbitration." SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called "public arbitration." It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.

5. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It's just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use star gazing as the Canon for the evaluation of doctrines.


Some Notes:

1. TECHNICALLY, Sola Scriptura does NOT say that all dogma must be taught in the Bible (again, remember - its a praxis and not a teaching). However, this IS a ramification of the praxis. If Sam taught that Jesus was 15 feet tall, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture does not "norm" this - thus we'd have an unnormed or abiblical teaching that we'd not regard as dogma. If Sam said that Jesus was born in Los Angeles, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture reveals this to be in error and thus heresy. If Sam said that Jesus' mother was named Mary, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture norms this and it is correct. Thus, for a teaching to be normed via this praxis, it would need to be found in Scripture to a suffient degree to be so arbitrated. Because this ramification is rather clear, it is sometimes mentioned in connection with the praxis - but it's not technically a part of it.


2. The Doctrine of Scripture says that SCRIPTURE is inerrant. The praxis of Sola Scriptura does not say that every use of such in norming will be infallible. I may have a perfect hammer but it doesn't guarentee that I will make a perfect table. But it probably is better than using my finger.




Sola Scriptura flows from the embrace of accountability. (VERY IMPORTANT!)


THIS is where we primarily disagree.

Protestants generally accept that teachers of doctrine are accountable for such.
Those that disagree (mainly the RCC) reject Sola Scriptura because they reject accountability for doctrines (usually in the exclusive case of self alone, they generally insist on accountability for all OTHER teachers - right here, right now). The discussion of this soon centers in this issue: Are teachers accountable for the doctrine they teach? Or is a teacher exempt from such because that single one is incapable of error?

Jesus DID embrace accountability and never exempted The Catholic Church. Scripture affirms accountability for teachers of doctrine. Just a very few of just NT verses on this: 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14.


Sola Scriptura is the praxis (practice) of using Scripture normatively. While practices are SELDOM taught in Scripture, we sometimes see them exampled. They need not be to be sound and good (we're using the internet right now, there's no examples of such in Scripture) but Sola Scriptura is found all over Scripture. Here's just 50 examples of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura): Matt 21:42 Matt 22:29, Matt 26:54, Matt 26:56, Matt 2:5, Matt 4:4l, Matt 4:6, Matt 4:7l, Matt 4:10, Matt 11:10, Matt 21:13, Matt 26:24, Matt 27:37, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 4:17, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25, John 19:20, John 20:30, John 20:31, John 21:25. There are more, of course.

The following examples of the Apostles doing so: Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11. Acts 8:24, Acts 18:28, Acts 1:29. Acts 7:42, Acts 13:29, Acts 13:33, Acts 15:15, Acts 23:5, Acts 24:14, , Acts 13:46, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 26:26, Romans 1:17, Romans 2:24, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:10, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:23, Romans 8:36, Romans 9:13, Romans 10:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:26, Romans 12:19, Romans 14:11, Romans 15:3, Romans 15:9, Romans 15:21, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 Cor. 3:19 , 1 Cor. 4:6, 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Cor. 9;10, 1 Cor. 10:7, 1 Cor. 10:10, 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Cor. 15: 54, 2 Cor. 4:13, 2 Cor. 8:15, 2 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, Gal. 3:10, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:22, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16 Of course, during this time, The Catholic Church was not mentioned at all. For anything, about anything, concerning anything, in any context concerning any matter.



Norming:


Norming is the evaluation of the correctness/validity/truthfulness of a position. Bob the Builder is hired by us to build a fence 6 feet tall. He's done and says it is 6 feet tall. IF truth matters to us, the issue then becomes: is it correct? Evaluating that is called "norming."

The first issue in norming is WHAT will serve as the Standard in such. This is technically called the "norma normans" in epistemology. It is the rule ("straight edge") or canon ("measuring stick") for norming. Let's say you and I and Bob the Builder all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape as our canon (the word literally means "measuring stick" and comes from the epistemology of norming). We are all accepting accountability for the position (that the fence is 6 feet tall) and we are all embracing the same rule/canon/norma normans. We all have one, we all regard it as reliable for this purpose, and it is objective - knowable to all, alterable by none, above and beyond all parties involved.

In theology, accountability is also relevant for truth is. Thus norming is required.
Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans.



The RCC rejects Sola Scriptura not because it has an alternative rule/canon (it doesn't) but because it rejects accountability in doctrine in the singular, exclusive case of it itself alone, requiring instead that all just accept whatever it says "with docility." (CCC 87) just as the Catholics in this thread are attempting to state and defend.







.

[AvrilNYC]

Josiah posted

"Okay.  Then so is every priest, bishop, archbishop and pope in the RCC because they are all "mere mortal sinners."  Thus, why do you blindly follow ('with docility') what you believe are the blind?   Isn't THAT "blindly following the blind?"  




First of all, Catholic priests never define dogma. So your first point just reveals how clueless you are about Catholic theology. Second, individual Bishops never define dogma either - again you reveal how clueless you are regarding Catholic faith - a faith you keep distorting. An Ecumenical council of Bishops can define dogma (did you know that?).

An ecumenical Council (or the Pope speaking ex Cathedra) does not err on dogmatical issues. Why?? because the Holy Spirit protects the Church from doctrinal error. Which is why for example, we blindly believe in the Nicene Creed and don't question it. The servants of the Church  (bishops) are protected by the Holy Spirit as a whole when they address doctrinal issues as part of an ecumenical Council. They (the bishops) are the body of Christ..

For someone who claims to understand Catholic dogma - your posts seem pretty clueless

[chestertonrules]

Matthew 18

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

Moot. 

It's not about doctrine or hermenteutics or norming.  And it never so much as mentions The Catholic Church (or any other teacher of doctrine)

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Moot.   Jesus never said this to The Catholic Church.  ANYONE from Joseph Smith to Jim Jones to Mary Baker Eddy to you can claim the "you" here applies to self exclusively.  But, of course, it doesn't.  The text tells us who the "you" is and it ain't the RCC.

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Moot.  This is about the resolution of sins against persons, not the norming of doctrines.    And it never so much as MENTIONS the RCC - for or about or concerning anything.





.

Matt 18:17 is about obedience to the Church.  You choose to ignore the Church and lean on your own understanding, just like Luther did.

In Luke 10 Jesus was speaking to Church leaders, not you.  If you don't listen to them, you aren't listening to Jesus, yo are following your own pride.

John 20 tells us that Jesus is giving his apostles the same authority that God gave him.  Jesus chose successors, so of course the apostles did as well.  Jesus gave the apostles to forgive or retain the sins of others.

[stevehut]

So your argument is just that Catholics are dumb?   I guess with this post and your response to Winsome would mean that you are dropping your assertion that Catholic priest "do not encourage it", then.   As there is the class by your admission and there is no higher authority of priests within the Church than the Vatican, it is of course, encouraged by them.   

As I said before, I haven't claimed anything about the church in general.     Only my experiences with the church and with the Catholic people I've known.