Since I wrote the majority of links in the opening post, I guess I should explain the point.
As far as I know, it was Patrick Madrid who popularized the description "blueprint for anarchy" in describing sola scriptura. It was a little over ten years ago that a group of Catholic apologists contributed chapters to the 600+ page book, Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing, 1997]. Patrick Madrid was responsible for the first chapter: Sola Scriptura, A Blueprint for Anarchy.
Sola scriptura means that the Bible is the ultimate and only infallible sufficient source of authority for a Christian. There are lower authorities, like Church leaders and teachers (these must always though be judged by sacred Scripture).
The counter charge (from Roman Catholics) seems to be that one needs to include an infallible tradition or infallible Church hierarchy as the ultimate and sufficient source as an authority. This must be so because Protestants disagree with one another, so obviously sola scriptura is a failure. Without an infallible interpreter and authority like the Roman Catholic Church, one has doctrinal chaos. Sola scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy.
Roman Catholics and Protestants agree that apostolic teaching previous to New Testament inscripturation was an infallible, sufficient source for doctrine. But yet we find that those who heard apostolic teaching previous to New Testament inscripturation disagreed among themselves on the teaching they heard at times. In other words, there was error present in the early church while the apostles were teaching. Because those who directly heard the apostles teaching got it wrong and disagreed among themselves at times, does this mean that the apostles were insufficient sources as an infallible authority for the early church? Those who heard the very voices of infallibility in the first century made errors, but it does not follow that the apostles were insufficient as authorities.
Similarly, that some people misinterpret or twist the Bible is not the fault of the Bible, hence not a proof against sola scriptura. In the same way, that I may possibly configure my computer incorrectly is not the fault of the owner’s manual that comes with it. The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source.
Again, The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source. This same principle applies to Romanism. That some Romanists misuse and abuse their source of authority doesn't negate that infallible source of authority. What this means as well is the argument that sola scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy fails as well. If the argument you're using works just as well against your own position, it's an invalid argument. Shall we conclude that an infallible interpreter + infallible tradition + infallible scripture = harmony? The facts speak for themselves. The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity or authority of that sufficient source.
Here's one of the responses to the above:
By your argument, it seems Jesus was wrong in sending a Church to make disciples, teaching them to observe all that He commanded them, because they were incompetent and unable to do it, even with the promised Holy Spirit that He sent to insure that they would be reminded of all He taught, and would further lead them into coming things. Was the Father also mistaken, then, in sending Jesus to an impossible task? If the Church was not to do what He sent them to do, what He empowered them to do, and what He prayed for, why should anyone today believe or follow Him? The faith you advocate seems a futile one.
I responded: The pope recently said, "The Eucharist is like the beating heart that gives life to the whole mystical body of the Church: a social organism entirely founded on the spiritual but concrete link with Christ." In one of the links above, one of the apologists at Catholic Answers stated that 70% of Roman Catholics do not understand the Eucharist. Is the Roman Magisterium incompetent? Is it their fault for a 70% failure? When Peter, who walked daily with the Lord Jesus Christ, faced correction by Paul because of error (Galatians 2:11-21), was it because Jesus failed as teacher?
The irony is I'm actually helping Romanism with the argument I presented. I'm arguing disunity or confusion in Romanists doesn't necessarily refute Romanism. The corollary though is that disunity or confusion doesn't necessarily refute sola scriptura either.
Posts
28 comments:
The RC argument tends to make unity itself a goal, which it is not, and the only real doctrinal unity which sola ecclesia in Romanism fosters is that of implicit faith in the IM, and which is essentially the same as cults typically foster, and do a better job of it with its teaching office which is effectively held as superior to Scripture.
The unity that results from the Berean heart and method is greater in quality, if not quantity, than that of Rome.
And while RCAs ask what good is an infallible authority without an infallible interpreter, which presumed that the former established the latter, but in reality Rome infallible interpreter that has "infallibly" defined itself to be infallible when fulfilling its infallibly defined formula. And by which she can channel that amorphous thing called Tradition, and interpret history and Scripture as she will, diss disallowing any correction.
SS provides for the teaching magisterium, but not as assuredly infallible, as those who hold to SS are not to think of men above that which is written, and cannot claim assured infallibility, but appeal to that which assuredly it infallible, and seek to persuade souls by "manifestation of the truth, by Scripture and the power of God which it attests of. (1Cor. 4:6; 2Cor. 6:1-10)
While this must allow for some disagreement, an infallible interpreter does not have mean that the laity have an infallible understanding of it.
Also, very little has been infallibly defined by Rome, and what has been does not necessarily mean the arguments behind such are infallible.
In addition, most of what RCs believe and practice is said to come from the non-infallible Ordinary magisterium, in which RCs are allowed varying degrees of interpretation, and they can overall have much liberty in interpreting Scripture. As long it dos not contradict the "unanimous consent of the "fathers" that is, but as Rome demonstrates, it need not be unanimous to be termed "unanimous."
Moreover, having lost her unholy secular sword, the effect of sola ecclesia has been to produce less popular unity and fidelity in moral views and core doctrines than among evangelicals. See here
Interesting post also here
JS wrote: I'm arguing disunity or confusion in Romanists doesn't necessarily refute Romanism. The corollary though is that disunity or confusion doesn't necessarily refute sola scriptura either.
I respond: The problem, James, is that your oversimplification ends up comparing apples to oranges. Yes, both apples and oranges are fruits and you speak of a disunity among Catholics due to a misunderstanding of what the Church really teaches on the Eucharist and compare THAT to the "anarchy" of Protestantism which has differing sects of Protestants in FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT with each other! In short, you make a comparison of Catholic ignorance to Protestant disagreement and the two cannot be compared by one with any amount of integrity.
"If the argument you're using works just as well against your own position, it's an invalid argument."
This is also known as an "internal critique", yes?
CathApol said,
Yes, both apples and oranges are fruits and you speak of a disunity among Catholics due to a misunderstanding of what the Church really teaches on the Eucharist and compare THAT to the "anarchy" of Protestantism which has differing sects of Protestants in FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT with each other! In short, you make a comparison of Catholic ignorance to Protestant disagreement and the two cannot be compared by one with any amount of integrity.
But isn't the RC more than just misunderstandings of the teachings? Isn't there disagreements on what is the correct teaching, infallible statements, etc...as well?? And even acceptable teachings that may contradict each other?
Thanks.
In Him,
Joe
Joe wrote: But isn't the RC more than just misunderstandings of the teachings?
I would say that the RC is not at all the misunderstandings of the teachings.
Joe continues: Isn't there disagreements on what is the correct teaching, infallible statements, etc...as well??
Aren't there? Well, there are disagreements - but NOT in what has been declared and defined as dogma and/or as an Article of Faith. Some argue about whether a given papal bull "fits" the definition of an infallible statement, I do not deny that. However that which is defined cannot be denied, period, by anyone who claims to be a faithful Catholic.
Joe concludes with: And even acceptable teachings that may contradict each other?
Acceptable and non-dogmatic? Sure, there is room for such within the Church. Dogmatic teachings do not contradict each other.
My point with James is that his comparison is not apples to apples or oranges to oranges. He brought up a comparison of ignorant Catholics (allegedly 70% not understanding the Eucharist properly) and compared that to Catholic apologists who point out anarchy between Protestants on fundamental beliefs. THAT is my point. James sees irony in helping the Catholic position, well, he could consider that I am trying to help his position in pointing out the invalidity of his statement so that he might try to construct a valid argument next time.
I would say that the RC is not at all the misunderstandings of the teachings.
Looking back at my original post, I was not very clear. My point is that within the RCC disagreements as what scripture/church/etc actually teach is beyond and much more complex than simple "misunderstandings".
My point with James is that his comparison is not apples to apples or oranges to oranges. He brought up a comparison of ignorant Catholics (allegedly 70% not understanding the Eucharist properly) and compared that to Catholic apologists who point out anarchy between Protestants on fundamental beliefs. THAT is my point.
Yes...I realize what your point is. But do not see the apples to oranges comparison you are claiming. If, under the principle of SS, there are disagreements as to what scripture actually teaches...these disagreements do not invalidate the principle of SS. Maybe SS is wrong on other accounts...but not because there are disagreements on what scripture teaches.
And, just because there are misunderstandings as to what Rome teaches on the Lords Supper, or anything really, it does negate the truth of what Rome claims for itself. Apply it to transub, apply it to what are considered infallible statements, whether the bible is inerrant, or sufficient, etc...
I think the principle can be applied to either misunderstandings or disagreements.
I had a conversation with 3 RC recently...and one said everything that the RCC teaches is found in the bible, another said no, not everything is in the bible but in tradition as well, and yet others say there are some teachings not in the bible or tradition. Would you consider the source of revelation and where the Church gets its doctrine NOT a "fundamental belief"?
Just so I can understand more where you are coming from, would you say that SS is wrong then, soley on the basis that there are disagreements on what the scriptures teach? (Yes, I know you think it is wrong because Rome says so, but regardless of that)
Thanks.
In Him,
Joe
Some in the RC are supportive of the Gnostic Gospels others not. Some support ordination of women others not. By the way, there are breakaways in the RC who have women in the pulpit. There are also many so called Catholics who do not support the church's position on abortion, homosexual marriage and again womens' ordination.
So if unity is your proposal CathApol it does not hold under scrutiny. The fact that there is not unity in Protestantism does not mean there is any anarchy on our part anymore than there is the existence of anarchy in the RC.
LOL
sw>> I would say that the RC is not
sw>> at all the misunderstandings
sw>> of the teachings.
j> Looking back at my original
j> post, I was not very clear.
sw: Thank you for acknowledging that. I try not to answer a question you really didn't ask.
j> My point is that within the RCC
j> disagreements as what
j> scripture/church/etc actually
j> teach is beyond and much more
j> complex than simple
j> "misunderstandings".
sw: You really haven't clarified much here. If you have specific examples, perhaps we can deal with those.
sw>> My point with James is that
sw>> his comparison is not apples
sw>> to apples or oranges to
sw>> oranges. He brought up a
sw>> comparison of ignorant
sw>> Catholics (allegedly 70% not
sw>> understanding the Eucharist
sw>> properly) and compared that
sw>> to Catholic apologists who
sw>> point out anarchy between
sw>> Protestants on fundamental
sw>> beliefs. THAT is my point.
j> Yes...I realize what your point
j> is. But do not see the apples
j> to oranges comparison you are
j> claiming.
sw: Then perhaps you need to go back and reread, I was quite clear in pointing out Swan's flawed attempt to make an example of an undocumented 70% of Catholics failing to understand the Eucharist in comparison to Catholic apologists who point out fundamental differences between Protestant beliefs. On one hand you have Swan presenting ignorant Catholics who do not understand their own faith while on the other hand there are SS Protestants who vehemently oppose other SS Protestants on identical matters.
NOW, if one were to present evidence of "Catholics" who understand Catholic teaching on the Eucharist and stand in open opposition to it - well, now you've merely gone into dissenting Catholics - NOT "faithful" Catholics.
(continued...)
(continuing...)
j> If, under the principle of SS,
j> there are disagreements as to
j> what scripture actually
j> teaches...these disagreements
j> do not invalidate the principle
j> of SS. Maybe SS is wrong on
j> other accounts...but not
j> because there are disagreements
j> on what scripture teaches.
sw: I have to disagree with you here. If Scripture is so perspicuous (as most who preach SS state it is) then why would their be ANY discussion on FUNDAMENTAL MATTERS like infant baptism or the number of actual sacraments - or even the EXISTENCE of sacraments! You're not addressing my points.
j> And, just because there are
j> misunderstandings as to what
j> Rome teaches on the Lords
j> Supper, or anything really, it
j> does negate the truth of what
j> Rome claims for itself.
sw: I agree with you here, and again MY POSITION is not in opposition to misunderstandings between SS Protestants, but in flat out disagreements between differing SS sects.
j> Apply it to transub, apply it
j> to what are considered infallible
j> statements, whether the bible is
j> inerrant, or sufficient, etc...
sw: Apply what?
j> I think the principle can be
j> applied to either
j> misunderstandings or disagreements.
sw: Then apparently you do not understand the situation. A one may not be culpable for a misunderstanding whereas a disagreement is something you willfully and deliberately participate in.
j> I had a conversation with 3
j> RC recently...and one said
j> everything that the RCC teaches
j> is found in the bible, another
j> said no, not everything is in
j> the bible but in tradition as
j> well, and yet others say there
j> are some teachings not in the
j> bible or tradition. Would you
j> consider the source of revelation
j> and where the Church gets its
j> doctrine NOT a "fundamental belief"?
sw: The Church teaches that the fullness of truth is found in Scripture and Sacred Tradition. It would be rather foolish to state that everything the Catholic Church teaches is found in the Bible since clearly the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (ABVM, a dogmatic teaching of the Church which NO faithful Catholic can deny) is not found in Scripture. There is precedence for the ABVM in Scripture, but the ABVM is not explicitly taught by Scripture. Your first example is one of ignorance. The second has it right, the third if anyone actually said that, is quite foolish since if it does not exist in Scripture OR Sacred Tradition - then it would not be considered dogmatic or an Article of Faith. In short, you've not contributed anything of significance to this conversation in these examples.
(continued...)
(concluding...)
j> Just so I can understand more
j> where you are coming from,
j> would you say that SS is wrong
j> then, soley on the basis that
j> there are disagreements on what
j> the scriptures teach?
sw: No, sola scriptura is wrong on so many accounts - but that was not the point here. I have more fully refuted sola scriptura in several articles on my website and blog. I have countered James White, TurretinFan, Steve Hays, RC Sproul and even at the sources of sola scriptura. If you want to learn more about where I'm coming from, that should give you some background. As for THIS SUBJECT on THIS BLOG I believe I've made my point quite clearly. Again, to answer your question directly - no, I do not say sola scriptura is wrong solely based on the disagreements between Protestants on what Scriptures teach.
Scott<<<
If i may reiterate, i expressed, I am not impressed with the assurance Rome offers by way of implicit assent in a self-proclaimed infallible magisterium,
whose infallible pronouncements do not assure infallibly understanding,
while how many times it has spoken thusly is open to interpretation,
though by common consent it is very few,
with most of what RCs believe and practice being from the Ordinary Magisterium, and allowing some dissent,
and whose teachings are not concise or comprehensive,
and overall Rome gives the RC great liberty to interpret the Bible to support what they understand Rome's teaching to be.
The Scriptures do not substantiate Rome's doctrine of an assuredly infallible magisterium, which establishes doctrine by fiat, and by relying on this Rome differs little from cults such as Mormonism, who likewise equate extra-Biblical "revelation" with the Scriptures, and interpret history as validating them, while its "living prophet" is the supreme authority.
But the valid aspect in all this is that of a centralized authority. Rome has hers, and Prot. denoms have theirs, but neither of which are over the whole church.
Rome claims this supremacy, bur this is what is most supremely divisive by necessity, as its authority is not established by apostolic means, that of Scriptural corroboration and supernatural testimony and holy effects and power, (2Cor. 6:1-10) but instead it effectively relies upon the premise that its own declaration is infallible, regardless of challenge from the Divinely inspired Scriptures, while she also owes much of her rule to the use of the sword of men, with forgery also helping.
undocumented 70% of Catholics failing to understand the Eucharist
Unlike other views, this is one area in which there has been some significant differences, partly due to the wording, or age.
A 1992 Catholic-funded Gallup Poll found only 30% of American Catholics affirmed: "When receiving Holy Communion, you are really and truly receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine. Poll of 519 American Catholics, 18 years or older, conducted from December 10, 1991, to January 19, 1992, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-79305248.html
Responding to the questions on the Roman Catholic Eucharist, “Which of the following comes closest to what you believe takes place at Mass: (1) The bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, or (2) The bread and wine are symbolic reminders of Christ? 63% of Roman Catholics overall, and 51% of weekly attenders, and 70% of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 affirmed the Roman Catholic Eucharist is a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus, indicating they do not believe it is Jesus actual body and blood. New York Times/CBS News poll, Apr. 21-23, 1994, subsample of 446 Catholics, MOE ± 5% http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_n2_v122/ai_16233123/pg_8/ 1995 Commonweal Foundation
In a survey by the Pew Forum, 55% of Catholics affirmed that their church teaches that the bread and wine in their liturgy of the Lord's supper become Christ’s body and blood, [an erroneous doctrine] while (41%) said that the church teaches that the bread and wine are symbols. http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx
However, a Catholic polling service reported that 57 percent of adult Catholics (and 91% of adult weekly Mass attenders), said their belief about the Eucharist is best reflected by the statement “Jesus Christ is really present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist,” [a statement which Lutherans could assent to] versus to 43 percent who said their belief is best reflected in the statement, “Bread and wine are symbols of Jesus, but Jesus is not really present.” Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University, 2007, commissioned by the Department of Communications of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)
A study by the Roper Center and commissioned by Catholic World Report reported that 82% of Catholics percent agreed with the statement that "the bread and wine used at Mass are actually transformed into the body and blood of Christ," and 57 percent attend Mass every week. Catholic World Report; 1997 survey of 1,000 Catholic Americans by Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut. http://www.adoremus.org/397-Roper.html
From compilation http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html
Mr. Scott.
Sorry if I am not "addressing your points", apparently not reading well enough (since per you, I have to reread things again), "clarifying" well, and lastly that my "understanding" is lacking.
I am not an experienced/expert/etc..apologist or even blogger for that matter. So, please bear with me...as I do not have a contentious spirit against you at this point. A Lutheran now, I am willing to convert to wherever truth leads me. Perhaps you do not have a contentious spirit against me either, but it sure seems like it.
You said, You really haven't clarified much here. If you have specific examples, perhaps we can deal with those.
Okay...since you agreed already that there are disagreements (that go beyond a simple misunderstanding) to what are in fact infallible statements...use that example.
Then perhaps you need to go back and reread, I was quite clear in pointing out Swan's flawed attempt to make an example of an undocumented 70% of Catholics failing to understand the Eucharist in comparison to Catholic apologists who point out fundamental differences between Protestant beliefs. On one hand you have Swan presenting ignorant Catholics who do not understand their own faith while on the other hand there are SS Protestants who vehemently oppose other SS Protestants on identical matters.
Well, I did go back and reread. :) First, it appears from PeacebyJesus that it is documented. Second, I never claimed that every aspect of the analogy was exactly identical. How could it really, given the diff between Prot/RC.
NOW, if one were to present evidence of "Catholics" who understand Catholic teaching on the Eucharist and stand in open opposition to it - well, now you've merely gone into dissenting Catholics - NOT "faithful" Catholics.
Well, from my understanding, Mr. Swan's was not arguing that there are disagreements within RC on the eucharist. Misunderstandings yes. But like I said before, I think the overall point can apply to either misunder or disagree. If you want an actual disagree, then perhaps use the example I mentioned above.
cont...
cont...
I have to disagree with you here. If Scripture is so perspicuous (as most who preach SS state it is) then why would their be ANY discussion on FUNDAMENTAL MATTERS like infant baptism or the number of actual sacraments - or even the EXISTENCE of sacraments! You're not addressing my points.
Okay, I know you are accusing me of not addressing your points...again I am sorry and please be patient with me. If I am not, it is not on purpose. I agree that the simple comparison to misunderstandings of the eucharist to disagreements of Prot is not the same. But, I do not see that, by itself, is the main idea of the post. The idea I tried to express, and as I understand Mr. Swan, is that disagreements within Prot does not necessarily prove the principle of SS false anymore than if Scrip/Rome/Jesus or any authority taught X, but people understood or purposely twisted it to mean Y....it would necessarily follow that the original authority was incorrect or invalidated.
I agree with you here, and again MY POSITION is not in opposition to misunderstandings between SS Protestants, but in flat out disagreements between differing SS sects.
Okay. Yes, I realize what your position is that of disagree and not mere misunder. So the same principle of an authority still being a legitamate authority, even if it is misunder/misinterpret/flat disagree....applies to Rome but not Prot. I must be missing something here.
Apply it to transub, apply it
j> to what are considered infallible
j> statements, whether the bible is
j> inerrant, or sufficient, etc...
sw: Apply what?
Apply the principle we are discussing.
j> I think the principle can be
j> applied to either
j> misunderstandings or disagreements.
sw: Then apparently you do not understand the situation. A one may not be culpable for a misunderstanding whereas a disagreement is something you willfully and deliberately participate in.
Perhaps I do not understand. I do understand the difference between misunder/disagree, but do not see how it relates. How does it violate the principle that an authority can still be a valid authority even if either misunder/disagree?
cont...
The Church teaches that the fullness of truth is found in Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
It would be rather foolish to state that everything the Catholic Church teaches is found in the Bible since clearly the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (ABVM, a dogmatic teaching of the Church which NO faithful Catholic can deny) is not found in Scripture. There is precedence for the ABVM in Scripture, but the ABVM is not explicitly taught by Scripture. Your first example is one of ignorance. The second has it right, the third if anyone actually said that, is quite foolish since if it does not exist in Scripture OR Sacred Tradition - then it would not be considered dogmatic or an Article of Faith. In short, you've not contributed anything of significance to this conversation in these examples.
Sorry if this example from recent personal experience does not contribute anything to the conversation. Certainly, I do not want to waste anyone's time here. I brought it up because I would think that the issue would be considered a fundamental belief, and because this has happened before and is frustrating for one who is actually trying to learn RC and Ortho thought directly from those who are RC, even from those who presently teach other RC in their local parish.
You say that the Assumption is clearly not found in scripture...but yet I read from Juniper Carol that Pius XII did base it on scripture.
You also said the first example, that everything is contained in scripture, is foolish. Honest question here, are you saying that those RC who say the bible is materially sufficient are then foolish as well? I would assume so.
Concerning the 3rd example, you acknowledge that the bible clearly does not teach the Assumption. But again from Juniper Carol, I read the first explicit teaching of it occurred in the mid-6th century from an apocryphal writing. If it did not come into "Tradition" until then and it is not found in the bible, would that not be considered and example of the 3rd instance above?
No, sola scriptura is wrong on so many accounts - but that was not the point here. I have more fully refuted sola scriptura in several articles on my website and blog. I have countered James White, TurretinFan, Steve Hays, RC Sproul and even at the sources of sola scriptura. If you want to learn more about where I'm coming from, that should give you some background.
Well, thank you...I will try to read all of these. And yes, I realize as a RC, that you think SS is wrong on many accounts, but your right, as I stated earlier, that was not my question.
As for THIS SUBJECT on THIS BLOG I believe I've made my point quite clearly. Again, to answer your question directly - no, I do not say sola scriptura is wrong solely based on the disagreements between Protestants on what Scriptures teach.
Just so I completely understand the last thing you said...let me rephrase. If we assumed (again, I know you believe otherwise), that SS was correct on every other principle...would the principle we have been discussing invalidate SS?
Thanks.
In Him,
Joe
NOW, if one were to present evidence of "Catholics" who understand Catholic teaching on the Eucharist and stand in open opposition to it - well, now you've merely gone into dissenting Catholics - NOT "faithful" Catholics.
It' easy to have unity when you get to draw the boundaries of identity.
Are unfaithful, baptized Catholics still Catholics? I'm sure Scott would say yes b/c if he boots out every baptized Catholic who doesn't assent 100% to 100% of the RCC teachings, he will be one lonely fellow. But what I should ask is what is the church's teaching on who is or isn't Catholic?
The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source.
Scott: Yes, both apples and oranges are fruits and you speak of a disunity among Catholics due to a misunderstanding of what the Church really teaches on the Eucharist and compare THAT to the "anarchy" of Protestantism which has differing sects of Protestants in FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT with each other
So does Nancy Pelosi misunderstand the church's pro-life teachings or does she disagree with them? Come on, Scott, you know that there are plenty of Catholics who DISAGREE with the church's teachings.
you know that there are plenty of Catholics who DISAGREE with the church's teachings.
"Plenty" is an understatement, as is the fact that they may without any real discipline, while what they are allowed to disagree on is much more than they realize.
The vast majority of RCs are morally and politically liberal, but there is little manifest concern over them as compared with the concern over such becoming converted and becoming conservative evangelicals, which churches Rome insolently does not even consider worthy of the title.
This is because Rome preaches herself, as the gospel Rome effectually conveys is largely that of faith in her self-proclaimed power, as well as one's own merits, with an ambiguous idea of God's mercy, which offers hope that even the most nominal of RCs, incldg abortion and homosexual-promoting members, will eventually gain glory due to her intercession and their own good deeds.
Psychology is a priestly profession with Rome, and like insurance companies, it much relies on sight and size in promoting this idea of its preeminence and trustworthiness.
As regards the Eucharist, that Rome's doctrine is contrary to Scripture should be evident upon examination, though it seems there was historical dissension on this.
But this is one of the few things RCs show a great degree of unanimity one, while i see the things which RCs are basically not allowed to dissent from as corresponding to the core essentials those who hold to SS require typically belief in, in contrast to cults who deny the Apostle's Creed, and salvation by grace, and the supremacy of Scripture and its sufficiency.
And which unity is more remarkable in the light of the lack of a universal central ecclesiastical authority (which we need not be opposed to, in principal).
Likewise, i see the degree of disagreement which evangelicals overall tolerate as corresponding to that which Rome effectually tolerates.
While we do not preach a church, but a faith which requires Scriptural warrant and its manner of confirmation, Rome does preach a church, one whose claim to veracity is not dependent upon Scriptural means but her own claims, and thus before it throws stones at us then it needs to deal with its own mixed multitude, from her predominate liberal scholarship to laity.
Sedevacantism overall make a good case that Rome has changed, though fundamentally it is in error, and the few "Traditional" RCs recognize the laxity of real discipline by their church, and long for its unholy Inquisition by unscriptural means, which, lacking Scriptural spiritual means, it much relied upon and misses today.
Honest question here, are you saying that those RC who say the bible is materially sufficient are then foolish as well?
Though this was not directed at me, i would answer that (as another example of uncertainty in Rome) there is not infallible teaching on this, but as explained here
There are those who believe that Divine Revelation is contained partly in Scripture and partly in ‘Sacred Tradition’. This view is commonly called ‘partim/partim’.
On the other side is the view that all Divine Revelation is contained in Scripture and that ‘Sacred Tradition’ is an interpreter of Scripture.
James Swan blogged on this
here
The degree to which Scripture is formally sufficient is open to some disagreement, but that it ably formally sufficient to make one "wise unto salvation" a degree should be evident, for if souls were converted under such preaching as seen in Acts 10:36-43 then it should be allowed that souls can be today by reading it.
But Scripture is materially sufficient as it sanctions the appeal to reason, and provides for the church and its teaching magisterium, and the means of establishing truth claims and the authority of men of God and the church. And which means stands in contrast to those which rest upon their claim to supremacy over Scripture. And it is the aspect of SS that Scripture is the supreme authority that Rome also rebels against, and persecutes those who are born of the Spirit, (cf. Gal. 4:29) as did the Jews in Jesus time who likewise supposed authority to teach mere traditions of men as doctrines of God. (Mk. 7:6-13)
So does Nancy Pelosi misunderstand the church's pro-life teachings or does she disagree with them? Come on, Scott, you know that there are plenty of Catholics who DISAGREE with the church's teachings.
Getting into what individual Catholics profess or practice is fruitless, so I won't attempt to judge Pelosi. If I were her, I would not hold the positions she holds politically. He position on Pro-Life is between her and her bishop - it is not up to me to judge her. I know you WANT me to judge her, but that's not my job.
Certainly there are plenty who CLAIM to be Catholics who disagree with Catholic teachings here and there... but if they disagree on any defined dogma, then they really can't call themselves Catholic anymore, not honestly. I'm sure you'd love to dig up all sorts of people whom you think are dishonest Catholics - but now you're making the argument about PERSONS and NOT about what the CHURCH teaches.
I'm not a Pelosi apologist, I'm a Catholic apologist.
Scott<<<
if they disagree on any defined dogma, then they really can't call themselves Catholic anymore
So they excommunicate themselves but Rome effectively treats the Ted Kennedy's of this world as Catholics in life and in death. And this is how the Scriptures deal with immoral persons and heretics?
Moreover, your term "defined dogma" as referring to infallibly defined statements leaves plenty of room for RCs to dissent to some degree, and for confusion, including the authority and meaning of multitudes of declarations.
but now you're making the argument about PERSONS and NOT about what the CHURCH teaches.
No, how the church you trumpet as supreme deals with souls such as Pelosi reveals what the church really teaches, as faith is shown by its works.
I once asked a conservative Franciscan monk if RCs were saved such as did not believe the literal nature of the story of Adam and Eve or that of Noah and the Flood, and he stated that such were going to Hell. So the the church he wanted me to join is predominately full of damned souls.
And determining what Rome really immutably teaches (even on the aforementioned issue) can often be quite a project.
Getting into what individual Catholics profess or practice is fruitless, so I won't attempt to judge Pelosi.
Scott, you need to go back and read your first comment here. I was answering you on your own grounds.
Scott's first comment said: "In short, you make a comparison of Catholic ignorance to Protestant disagreement and the two cannot be compared by one with any amount of integrity."
You seem to want people to believe that Catholics who don't hold to their church's teachings are just ignorant while Protestants who disagree with each other are willfully disobedient. But Nancy Pelosi is just an easy example of a Catholic who certainly must understand the pro-life teachings of her church yet chooses to disobey. I know we have talked about Catholic theologians here who go against church teachings (hard to call them ignorant) but they are usually just brushed off as liberal by someone like yourself.
but if they disagree on any defined dogma, then they really can't call themselves Catholic anymore, not honestly.
So a baptized Catholic ceases to be a Catholic when they disagree on any one dogma, and now they don't count? That is convenient.
I've actually seen two Catholics argue over this before so I can't really trust your personal opinion.
but now you're making the argument about PERSONS and NOT about what the CHURCH teaches.
You made it about people by declaring that any "Catholic" who disagree simply misunderstands.
Maybe you think that the lack of clear understanding and acceptance by the people doesn't negate the truth of the teachings? That is the point on both sides that you don't seem to get here!
More on
if they disagree on any defined dogma, then they really can't call themselves Catholic anymore...
Well, the good news is that according to modern Rome if they are baptized Protestants then they may be saved. That is, if V2 is considered to be an authoritative "clarification" of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, that "we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" means in some far distant sense, which is a real stretch, and which is another of the multitude of things RCs disagree on.
I prefer the honesty of Sungenis over the ostrich head-in-the-sand of Scot the Catholic Apologist about the internal turmoil within the Catholic Church.
James, your Catholic forum link is just another example that that behind the grand claims of doctrinal certainty in Rome is much confusion, even on the matter of Biblical inerrancy and interpretation itself.
One argues against historical accounts being literal, "otherwise we would have to believe that God commanded the Israelites to murder babies, rape women," and references the pope as denying the Bible is literally inerrant as he writes that the speech of Peter in Acts may not have been his speech at all, another quotes the Catechism or an encyclical as teaching otherwise.
And which also infers that all in the RCC and encyclical are infallible, while another thread denies this, leaving both what is dogma and its teaching open to interpretation, including whether inerrancy pertains to salvation or all of Scripture, and if the former, how does one always know where it stops.
While Rome warns against "intellectual suicide," that a certain "fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life," (http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp1.htm) its own approved notes in the official Bible for RCs in America promote doubt as to whether much of any historical account in Scripture can be trusted as factual, and which impugns the authority of its spiritual truths.
St. Joseph’s medium size, Catholic publishing co., copyright 1970, states that "The Bible is God’s word and man’s word. One must understand man’s word first in order to understand the word of God." ("A Library of Books," p. 19)
It “explains”, under “Literary Genres” (p. 19) that Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve and creation details) and Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 (Tower of Babel: the footnotes on which state, in part, “an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth”) are “folktales,” using allegory to teach a religious lesson.
It next states that the story of Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21; 22:36-38) was a fable, while the records of Gn. 37-50 (Joseph), 12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) and that of the Exodus are stories which are "historical at their core," while overall the author simply used "traditions" to teach a religious lesson.
The NAB thus rejects the Bible's attribution of Divine sanction to wars of conquest, deciding that this “cannot be qualified as revelation from God,” and states,
Think of the ‘holy wars’ of total destruction, fought by the Hebrews when they invaded Palestine. The search for meaning in those wars centuries later was inspired, but the conclusions which attributed all those atrocities to the command of God were imperfect and provisional." (4. "Inspiration and Revelation," p. 18)
It also holds that such things as “cloud, angels (blasting trumpets), smoke, fire, earthquakes,lighting, thunder, war, calamities, lies and persecution are Biblical figures of speech.” (8. “The Bible on God.”)
The footnotes regarding the Red Sea (Ex. 10:19) informs readers that what the Israelites crossed over was the Reed Sea, which was “probably a body of shallow water somewhat to the north of the present deep Red Sea.” Thus rendered, the miracle would have been Pharaoh’s army drowning in shallow waters.
All of which impugns the overall literal nature the O.T. historical accounts, and as Scripture interprets Scripture, we see that the Holy Spirit refers to such stories as being literal historical events (Adam and Eve: Mt. 19:4; Abraham, Issac, Exodus and Moses: Acts 7; Rm. 4; Heb. 11; Jonah and the fish: Mt. 12:39-41; Balaam and the donkey: 2Pt. 2:15; Jude. 1:1; Rev. 2:14).
More
Re Sungenis. Even if it means holding that the earth is the center of the Universe, and censure form fellow RCAs. http://geocentrism.com/Catholic_Geocentrism_1
So they excommunicate themselves but Rome effectively treats the Ted Kennedy's of this world as Catholics in life and in death. And this is how the Scriptures deal with immoral persons and heretics?
It would depend on which Scriptures you're looking at. OT would say stone them whereas the message in the NT is "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." Now, do I wish Ted Kennedy's or Nancy Pelosi's bishops would be more firm with them - CERTAINLY - but that's not my call. IF these bishops are not properly dispensing their discipline then they are not doing the Kennedys and Pelosis of the world any favors. If a lax bishop let them get away with anything, rest assured THE Judge will not.
I remind you too, you're still going to exceptions - those who appear (at least) to be getting away with something. Such arguments are not really valid in the bigger picture - like the comment regarding Arianism in another article, just because a LOT of Catholics were accepting the Arian Heresy for a while that didn't make it acceptable and/or officially taught by the Church. Even though Arianism reached to the highest places in the Church, it was never "taught by" the Church and was expressly condemned by the Church.
In short, there have ALWAYS been divisions and schisms and heresies amongst the Church - Arianism was one of the early ones, Protestantism came about some 1200 years later.
As for TUaD's comment, I do not have my head in the sand, I acknowledge differences in discipline - but amongst faithful Catholics there is NO dissenting in dogmatic teaching. Those who do dissent on such can no longer be considered "faithful" Catholics. Can someone like Sungenis run with geo-centrism and still be a faithful Catholic? Sure, geo-centrism is not a matter of dogma. Ironically, geo-centrism can be back by Scripture, how does the sola scriptura mindset deny it? But I digress.
Carrie, I'll come back to your comments later, I have to run for now.
Post a Comment