Thursday, October 11, 2007

Sola Scriptura vs Sola Ecclesia blog debate

Though I'm on a short hiatus, I'm pulling a centuri0n and calling attention to the debate blog between TurretinFan and Orthodox, who frequently comments here. It's very interesting so far and I'd encourage you to take a look.


28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Exactly what do you mean by "sola ecclesia?" I notice that Protestants on this site often say the Catholics teach "sola eclessia," but I don't see Catholics saying they do. Why is that?

kmerian said...

Because it is a nice sound bite. It makes it sound like Catholics put their church before the Word of God. We do not, of course.

johnMark said...

The secret doctrine of sola ecclesia that Catholics never talk about?

Okay, maybe that's not exactly what you were looking for, but the term and some debates are out there.

Mark

e i e said...

The site JohnMark linked looks like an extreme rarity. According to this fellow, "The definition of Sola Ecclesia is that the Church has the authority to interpret the Scriptures..." Which IS a doctrine Catholics do preach.

So for anyone to reasonably address Anonymous' second question (Why doesn’t he see Catholics using the term “sola ecclesia,”) Rhobology (or someone who understands what Protestants mean by "sola eclessia") must first answer his first question.

To be easier, however, I think Anonymous' questions might be better addressed if rephrased this way:

1) What do you mean by "sola ecclesia?"

2) Do Catholics also define it the same way?

3) If they do, do they defend it or deny it?

My money is on the bet that what Rhobology calls "sola ecclesia" is absolutely not a Catholic doctrine at all--in fact, that it is contrary to Catholic Doctrine.

Any takers?

E i E

e i e said...

JohnMark, just how many Catholic sites did you find that preached, "sola ecclesia?" I got thousands of hits and the ones I found that "specifically claimed" that the Catholic Church teaches this were non-Catholic sites.

On the other hand, a search for "sola ecclesia" of the online catechism, the repository for official Catholic publications and the U.S. Bishops' Web site yeilded this result:


Results for: "sola ecclesia"

No results were found for your search.
Try changing some of the words in your query


This must be a VERY secret Catholic doctrine indeed! Or is it a Protestant strawman?

Again, any bets?

E i E

EgoMakarios said...

Roman Catholics don't use the term sola ecclesia because all the sola terms are protestant. What the Prots mean is that the Roman Catholic Church says that only the Roman Catholic clergy can interpret Scripture. The RCC teaches that, but they don't use the phrase since it isn't their phrase. Their phrase is infallibility of the magesterium.

Anonymous said...

Sola ecclesia - describes the position taken by the RCC when it views Scriptures in relation to what is considered as the "rule of faith" among Catholics. Clearer when placed in contrast to the Sola Scriptura.

If the shoe fits, right?

Jerry

Rhology said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
e i e said...

"…the Roman Catholic Church says that only the Roman Catholic clergy can interpret Scripture."

This is not what the Church teaches. We teach that scripture is not subject to private interpretation, (by anyone, including clergy) which is a vastly different teaching.


Every Catholic is encouraged to read, meditate upon and contemplate Scripture every day, and if he is attentive, he also listens to many readings from scripture during every Mass, which he is also encouraged to meditate upon and contemplate. This absolutely requires private interpretation as there simply is no other way any human could receive the Word! Do you honestly think that we actually believe we should hear the word and try to not understand it?

The doctrine of not subjecting scripture or for that matter any revelation to private interpretation dictates that we cannot then take our private interpretation (which we obviously MUST have) and then subject God's revelation to it--which I dare say, is something you will likely agree to in principle, though the effect of sola scriptura renders such principle unpractical.

Again, we have a straw man, whereby you what indeed is a false doctrine--not just scripturally false, but also false in the sense that it is doctrine that the Church not only does not teach but in fact rejects.

One of the most unfortunate aspects of this false claim about Catholic doctrine is that it has been so widely propagated and popularized by false accusers that many Catholics also mistakenly think it is our teaching. So despicable and insidious!


E i E

e i e said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
e i e said...

"Sola ecclesia - describes the position taken by the RCC when it views Scriptures in relation to what is considered as the "rule of faith" among Catholics. Clearer when placed in contrast to the Sola Scriptura.

If the shoe fits, right?




Jerry:

The shoe does not fit.

See my related reply to Carrie's later article on the subject. "Rule of faith" does not mean that the Church trumps Scripture or that Scripture is not inerrant or that the Magesterium is always infallible.


E i E

Rhology said...

eie:

I was just trying to keep a good perspective on things. But I'm glad to see at least one RC admitting that DA's overapplication of that term is sinful.
And identifying the RC position as Sola Ecc is what we think. You disagree. Sorry, that doesn't mean we're either idiots or liars. It means we disagree.

Then you go on to misuse "anti-Catholic". Your convictions, it seems, can be short-lived.

Peace,
Rhology

Anonymous said...

"Rule of faith" does not mean that the Church trumps Scripture or that Scripture is not inerrant or that the Magesterium is always infallible.

Obviously, nobody here is accusing that RCC trumps scripture, etc. Only that RCC claims to be the sole interpreter of Scripture hence sola ecclesia. BTW that capacity belongs to God the Holy Spirit(John 16:13).

As a protestant, I don't have to use my own personal private interpretation. The Scriptures itself SPEAKS with authority as the very words of God. Thus to me, Ultimate authority rests on Scriptures Alone.

Jerry

Rhology said...

nobody here is accusing that RCC trumps scripture, etc.

I am. RCC's doctrine ignores what the Scriptures teach. But they keep believing it.

What I'd like is just for RCC to come out and say, "Yes, we believe the Scripture to be a secondary authority."

e i e said...

"...nobody here is accusing that RCC trumps scripture, etc."

I am.

And you you bear false witness in so saying.


What I'd like is just for RCC to come out and say, "Yes, we believe the Scripture to be a secondary authority.


Obviously you'd like us to "come out and say" that since it is the false accusation you want to use to smear, and it would give credence to your lie. How sad that you're reduced to wanting to appear "right" rather than be right and do right.

There's a very good reason we do not say this. It is not true.

E i E

e i e said...

"Obviously, nobody here is accusing that RCC trumps scripture, etc. Only that RCC claims to be the sole interpreter of Scripture..."

I've addressed this elsewhere. We do not teach that the Church is the "sole interpreter" of scripture--only that we are not to subject revelation to our private whimsy, and this applies for all church members, from the pope on down.

If a Bible-quoting neighbor, in defiance of what virtually all the Church holds true told you that he knows by God that the divine revelation of Scripture requires everyone tempted by porn to pluck out his eyes, would you allow him to subject you and the rest of Scripture to his private interpretation?

Would your telling him that whatever his "proof text" he is still wrong demonstrate that you think Scripture is secondary to your declaration?

For Heaven's sake, learn what it is you think you are attacking before attacking it.

Enough is Enough!

E i E said...

"As a protestant, I don't have to use my own personal private interpretation. The Scriptures itself SPEAKS with authority as the very words of God. Thus to me, Ultimate authority rests on Scriptures Alone."

And if SPEAKS with authority to your neighbor that your eyes must be plucked out, what then? "Oh well it doesn't SPEAK to him--just me?" I doubt that you believe that, really. In the practice of your doctrine, ultimate authority would rest on You Alone, not Scripture Alone, and I know that is not what you believe.

In truth, don't you actually recognize a "magesterium" of sorts yourself, whether you want to admit it?

E i E

Rhology said...

eie,

You are apparently a pretty angry person, what with your throwing around accusations of lying. Please, tone it down a bit. Disagreement is not the same as lying.
I would be lying if I were saying "eie claims and explicitly states that he believes in SE". I'd be in a position to know that's false. But I'm not saying that. I'm saying that RCC's position, admitted or not, is SE.

We do not teach that the Church is the "sole interpreter" of scripture--only that we are not to subject revelation to our private whimsy, and this applies for all church members, from the pope on down.

Which means nothing more nor less than "The Church® is the sole infallible interper". Sola Ecclesia.

Scripture requires everyone tempted by porn to pluck out his eyes, would you allow him to subject you and the rest of Scripture to his private interpretation?

No, b/c he would be wrongly interping the Scr. Why would I be responsible for following a bad interp?
Similarly, RCC teaches that salvation is by faith+works. Or that Scr is not the sole infallible rule of faith. Why would I be responsible for following a bad interp?

Would your telling him that whatever his "proof text" he is still wrong demonstrate that you think Scripture is secondary to your declaration?

Rather, it would hopefully demonstrate HOW he had misinterped the Scr, so that (again, hopefully) he would correct his view.

And if SPEAKS with authority to your neighbor that your eyes must be plucked out, what then? "Oh well it doesn't SPEAK to him--just me?"

I think you misunderstand. If a psg like this speaks to him, then it speaks to me. But physically plucking out an eye wouldn't stop sinning. You're going after the wrong angle here.

ultimate authority would rest on You Alone, not Scripture Alone,

Me Alone would be if I were to disregard Scriptural correction in favor of what *I* want.
Our position is that all tradition and other authority and decision is to be submitted to what Scr has revealed.
You are teetering dangerously close to the statement: "God has not revealed Himself in His Scr with sufficient clarity." Other adherents of SE have done so on this blog; hopefully you will break ranks with them.

don't you actually recognize a "magesterium" of sorts yourself,

Why? Since Scr sits in judgment over me, how could your statement stick?

And please, don't retreat to the stale stalwart "but it's just your interpretation!" We're all tired of it. You have the EXACT same problem. So that's just to head off at the pass a lame argument. But you seem to be very sharp, if a little shrill; hopefully you won't say sthg as silly as that.

Peace,
Rhology

E i E said...

"You are apparently a pretty angry person, what with your throwing around accusations of lying. Please, tone it down a bit. Disagreement is not the same as lying."

True, and continually asserting that the Church teaches "sola ecclesia" is a lie. I call it a lie, and you who assert this lie are lying. I've had enough of it. This is not anger. It is accurate, cold observation combined with flat refusal to bow to the lie. I'm sorry that it comes off as anger--such is the medium of writing.



E i E

e i e said...

"don't you actually recognize a "magesterium" of sorts yourself,

Why? Since Scr(ipture) sits in judgment over me, how could your statement stick?

Who told you which bible to use? the bible didn't. your magesterium did. you might not recognize it, and you feel free to contradict it whenever you have the whim, but it is there and you bow to it whenever you say, "this is revelation" and "this is not revelation."


However, you likely misunderstand "magesterium itself, and for that discussion, I point you to the related combox on the sola ecclesis discussion.

E i E

e i e said...

"if I were to disregard Scriptural correction in favor of what *I* want."

The number of responses and sheer length of material that anyone could easily assemble to demonstrate how virtually every Christian has experienced just this could constitute a sizeable book.

Do you seriously imagine that you never interpreted scripture to mean what you want or disregarded some scriptural content because you preferred the interpretation of another verse or you deem its application is not practical? Do you have both of your eyes and both of your hands?

E i E

e i e said...

"No, b/c he would be wrongly interping the Scr. Why would I be responsible for following a bad interp?"

And therfore scripture is not subject to his private interpretation. Bravo.

This is NOT sola ecclesia, and you believe yourself.

E i E

Grand Inquisitor said...

Rhology said: "Similarly, RCC teaches that salvation is by faith+works. Or that Scr is not the sole infallible rule of faith."

So, you say the RCC teaches Faith and Works for salvation, by this statement I infer that you believe otherwise.

But first I will say:
1. You are wrong, the RCC teaches that JUSTIFICATION is by Faith & Works.
2. Can you demonstrate for us the opposite, that JUSTIFICATION is by faith only?

Second, Can you demonstrate that your scriptures are the only rule of faith for Christians?

"Our position is that all tradition and other authority and decision is to be submitted to what Scr has revealed."

On what do you base this assertion?

You are teetering dangerously close to the statement: "God has not revealed Himself in His Scr with sufficient clarity."


And where can I find the opposite of this statement?

RCC's doctrine ignores what the Scriptures teach.

Demonstrate that that is so, provide documentation, and/or citations.

Just to add some clarity:

Main Entry: anti-
Pronunciation: "an-"tI, "an-tE also "an-ti before consonsants

opposing or hostile to in opinion, sympathy, or practice b : opposing in effect or activity [antacid]

Anti-Catholic:
opposting or hostile to the Roman Catholic belief system, in opposition to Catholicism.

Just thought I would insert my two cents, now have at it,

Grand Mastor of the Inquisition

Anonymous said...

"Then you go on to misuse "anti-Catholic". Your convictions, it seems, can be short-lived.

Peace,
Rhology"


I get it! If anyone says Rhobology is anti-Catholic, then it's a misuse of the term! Wow! How convenient.

Carrie said...

We do not teach that the Church is the "sole interpreter" of scripture--

"In regard to these truth [faith and morals] the authority of Tradition and of the Bible is equal...Nevertheless, as we shall see later, the Church is superior to the Bible in the sense that she is the Living Voice of Christ, and therefore the sole infallible interpreter of the inspired Word, whenever an authoritative interpretation is required."

-A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1951 (pg 2)
with imprimatur and acknowledgment of Pope Pius XII

Anonymous said...

e i e said,
And if SPEAKS with authority to your neighbor that your eyes must be plucked out, what then? "Oh well it doesn't SPEAK to him--just me?"

How's this for a thought:
If our Omnipotent God is mightily able to save completely a repentant sinner through faith in Jesus Christ; How much more then our Omniscient God is mightily able to communicate his perfect will through His inerrant Word!

e i e said,
In the practice of your doctrine, ultimate authority would rest on You Alone, not Scripture Alone, and I know that is not what you believe.

The Scriptures does speaks with inherent authority and my response is to obey. The Holy Spirit guides us as promised (John 16:13). No need of plucking out of eyes.

Jerry

Anonymous said...

e i e,

However you try to wiggle out from the scrutiny your opinion is undergoing here, Official RCC pronouncements still pins you down.

That is why no matter how you personally dislike the style of the term sola ecclesia: the shoe-size does fit.

Jerry

Rhology said...

Do you seriously imagine that you never interpreted scripture to mean what you want or disregarded some scriptural content because you preferred the interpretation of another verse or you deem its application is not practical? Do you have both of your eyes and both of your hands?

So you're basing a major chunk of your argument on a misinterp of a text. Sounds familiar from RC keyboards.
Yes, I have both hands and both eyes. I don't, however, continue to engage in certain practices and thoughts that lead me to sin. And sometimes it hurt to cut them off.

Perhaps you could explain how cutting off an arm would prevent me from sinning? Plucking out an eye? Is not the change I'd need to do to keep from sinning in the HEART?

And I'm sure I have missed things. That's why I read the Bible MORE so I can try to screw up LESS. Scripture has that effect. When was the last time you read Ps 19 and 119? Makes me wonder if you really could pray that.

Peace,
Rhology