The theological bankruptcy of Sola Scriptura

Is it your argument that Pope Leo and Damasus were "overturned" by Vatican II?

Do you have actual "data" for that -- or is this like your "account of someone actually praying to the dead" in 2Macc again ??

 

I have no problem with the RCC overturning Papal statements - but I think they do.

See if you can get an actual quote saying that the teaching of Pope's Leo and Damasus no longer apply.

Note that in the quote I gave it was from an historical survey (by an "actual" Catholic historian) on the official teaching of the church regarding the Papacy and when official statements were first made by the CC establishing its supremacy.

To say that they are now "null and void" would have to come from them.

 

I guess the argument would be that change does not equate to error. The earliest Church councils brought about change, but not error. The change was due to a fuller understanding of the deposit of faith (if you accept that the early councils did bring this about -- do you?)

Surely you don't think that only the Catholics and Orthodox have developed their understanding of the deposit of faith? Seems that Protestant theologians have been pretty active in that endeavor as well, from the very first days of the Reformation.

 

Now, you're saying "change" is not error. Before; it was an argument of "oral apostolic tradition" that was not written, to try to prove there was no change from the first century.
Well, perhaps then sola scriptura was such a development of "deposit of faith" necessitated after centuries of infallible church authority that did keep changing and adding new doctrines and practices; many of them increasingly quite contrary to scripture.

 

Well; I never said there was any easy solution to the problem. Once again, the problem is man, and as long as we have man, we will have all sorts of interpretations, and forming some magisterium, or whatever (composed of more MEN), will not help, but create other problems.

 

Here is a portion of a article from http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/archives/2005/03/unitive_protest.html

"For instance, in Reformed polemics today we often hear much of Luther's stand before the Diet of Worms, where he uttered the famous words "My conscience is captive to the Word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me."

Now it is interesting to set this speech in its historical context rather than allowing it to function as some sort of "timeless truth" about Jeffersonian-style "self-evident truths". For in fact, Luther stood at the end of a very long, constantly frustrated process of reform and was faced with opponents whose position on authority had backed the Church into a corner from which no extrication was possible save by explosion--which actually happened. He was not merely a private Christian who had read his Bible in a purportedly "objective" manner and, having come to conclusions that differed from those of his authorities, felt he had some kind of absolute personal right to publicly propagate his views no matter the consequences (since, of course, he had the Truth).

At issue at Worms was not whether Luther as an individual should obey authority, but rather whether those claiming to be in authority were lawful rulers exercising their power in a godly manner. Luther was part of a long line of catholics who had been for over a century answering the former question with a resounding "Yes!" and the latter with a resounding "No!" "

 

Oh Noooooo......Don't tell me you subscribe to the whole "Trail of Blood" myth.

It's interesting that you choose to point out a dispute about when the church should celebrate Pascha/Easter (a matter of church discipline) to distract from the fact that your interpretation of the eucharist has no basis in the first 1500 years of the Church. Although the "Quartodecimian controversy" (as part of a complex of several disputes of the date for Easter over the centuries) might take a thread in itself, suffice it to say your take on it is somewhat simplistic and one-sided. Most scholars recogize diveristy of practice from the beginning. Those who were in Asia observed the 14th of Nissan (the day of the Lord's crucifixion) irrespective of upon what day of the week it fell. Others, including those in Rome (and including Irenaeus, another one of the disciples of Polycarp), thought it appropriate to celebrate the Lord's resurrection on the day of the week He rose from the dead. What's "pagan" about that?

(But if you are going to throw around the old "paganization-of-Christianity" canard, why stop there? There are many who believe that the whole idea of a dying-and-rising saviour god-man was borrowed from similar figures from pagan mythology, and that Christianity should be rescued from this early "paganization" and the Bible reinterpreted accordlingly. Is it then just a case of special pleading for you to draw the line of "paganization" where you want it and not where others might draw it?)

What's interesting about the disputes in the early church is that although folks disputed about when to celebrate Pascha (and other matters of church discipline); whether or not Gentile converts should be circumcised, etc; whether Christ was God or not (and if so, in what way); there is no record of a dispute
about the nature of the Eucharist (other than Ignatius commenting that the Docetist heretics didn't believe it). Those who wrote about it were unanimous in believing in the real presence. I suppose all of these hypothetical small, powerless groups of proto-Zwinglians were silenced by those powerful wicked catholics (even well before they attained "worldly power" under Constantine) without leaving a trace of historic evidence that they even existed.

But no where in Scripture does it say the true Gospel would be lost completely only to re-emerge and be proclaimed "before the end". That is quasi-Mormonism. (Unless again you want to imagine that hypothetical communities of Baptists--or SDAists, or JWs, or CoCers, take your pick--remained undetected in their caves all this time)

So what exactly is the difference between a "spiritual metaphor" and some "mystical meaning", and why are you so sure that one was mistaken for the other? Webster defines "mystical" as: "having a spiritual meaning that is neither apparent to the senses or obvious to the intelligence". So why do you try to draw a hard and fast distinction between the two, other than that you seemingly prefer to attribute one exclusively to Christianity and the other to gnosticism/paganism?

But can one really do that? There are many who suggest that when the biblical prophets were seeing their visions that they were having "mystical" experiences. And some would (and indeed, could) describe the Christian's "born again experience" as "mystical" since Webster's 2nd definition of the word is: "involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality". If such can be an accurate description for a Christian's "born again experience", why couldn't it be also for the Chrisitian's encountering Christ in the eucharist?

Regarding "spiritual metaphors", there are many modern interpreters of scripture over the past couple of centuries who suggest that Christ's resurrection wasn't physical, but was a "spiritual metaphor" for the hope of man. Indeed, these same interpreters would look at all the biblical miracles as, not literal occurances, but metaphors for a "spiritual truth". Given that, and the fact that early Christianity was allegedly "paganized" by borrowing from other dying-rising savior god-man myths, why shouldn't we join with this modern group of scholars, which seeks to rescue true Christianity from all these superstitious, pagan accretions, and interpret the Bible with this "spiritual" understanding in mind, unfettered by any tradition?

So, again, how are you so certain that the early Christians, all and in the same way, mistook a "spiritual metaphor" for a "mystical meaning" (without leaving a trace of a dispute), whatever you suppose the alleged difference between the two to be?

And that's all that it is; A theory, divorced from the historical evidence of the common traditional understanding of the church. And, again, how can you be certain that your "theory" (or private interpretation), based as it is on a 16th century innovation, is the one guided by the Holy Spirit as opposed to the common traditional understanding of the Eucharist being the interpretation that is so guided?

[ April 20, 2005, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Doubting Thomas ]

 

No; the Creeds/councils could have been more careful with some of the language they used, and tried to remain truer to the anteNicene expression of it (Irenaeus, Hyppolytus, etc), which did not have the problematic language. Even the orthodox bishops were very leary of the Nicene creed; but signed it anyway, because the formulation was superior to Arianism and the others. Still; once again; the problem we see there was in the imperfections of man, not the scripture.</font>[/QUOTE]Some orthodox bishops were initially leary of the language of the creed (homoousion) because of previous controversies with the Sabellians. After the Cappodocians distinguished three hypostases in one ousia, these "middle grounders" were able to accept the language of the creed. The point is that new language was required because the heretics were using the same Scriptures, and thus the same biblical language, to deny the deity of Christ or to deny the distinctions of the "persons" in the Godhead. (In fact, people on this message board have done the same thing in support of both of these errors) The same Holy Spirit who inspired the men who wrote the Scriptures, and guided the men to canonize the Scriptures (over time), certainly could inspire men new terms (over time) that would accurately convey the meaning of the Scriptures in the face of heresy.

 

No the difference is that a large section of the church never accepted it because it wasn't in the universal Creed but was rather a local innovation that spread from Spain and into the West and was resisted by Rome herself until the second millenium. Also when Christ Himself specifially spoke of the matter He said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father (John15:26), not the Father and Son. The filique causes confusion by blurring the distinction between the Spirit's eternal procession from the Father and Him being sent in time by the Son from the Father.

I don't see how you can prove that at all. That's just conjecture. In fact, the filioque may just as well been quelched more easily before the East and West began to become more isolated culturally and linguistically.

 

Self-directed by who? By a bunch of sinful men who call themselves a magesterium, who themselves are bound by Oral Tradition, and not by valid and objective interpretation of God's Word, who force their private interpretation of God's Word on over one billion other blind sheep. Thus their wrongly-interpreted results of God's Word are accepted blindly by the adherents of the RCC and must be defended at any cost. A good example is the definition of "born again," which the RCC gives an outlandish definition that no where fits the context. But now every Catholic must defend it, instead of going to the context (as sola scriptura demands) and see what the passage really means.

Christ never imparted infallibility to the dictates of the magesterium, and their interpretation of Scripture is more often wrong then right. Thus the beliefs of the RCC are the same--more wrong than right. It is the RCC that has the private interpretation, but won't admit to it.

The Bible contiually adominishes each and every one of us to: meditate, study, take heed, Search the Scriptures, etc. All of this is sola scriptura. It does not tell us to do this in light of a magesterium. It tells us to do it on our own.

Psalms 1:1-4 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.

The ungodly magesterium would have the RCC to study the catechism and not the Word of God.
DHK

 

But how do you know that the "power centers" of emerging catholicism did not unduly crush some small and silent opposition which maintained a separate true canon containing different books from our 27 book NT? (Those other scattered small churches that didn't "resist" may have just gone along with the "power center's" canon to avoid being "crushed".) You seemed to be suggesting that this is what happened to the hypothetical proto-Zwinglians (who denied the real presence) even before the church gained all of its "worldly power" under Constantine. Why couldn't this have been the case with the canon as well, and what you interpret as the "Holy Spirit's guidance" of the canonization process others may interpret as the winners getting to write history?

Just what is this "Church invisible"? What do they believe that's in common, and how do you know what this invisible body believes? By what criteria is one in this invisible body and how can you prove that criteria is valid?
And how is the world going to be convinced of the truth of Christianity by some alleged unity of some invisible body (John 17:21)?

 

Weren't the authors of Scripture "sinful men" (or were they just less sinful than whoever you are calling the "magesterium")? And what is this "valid and objective interpretation" you are talking about? How do you know? And what if someone has a different "valid and objective interpretation" than the one you provide--how are we to decide between the two, which is really the "valid and objective" one?

 

(Very slow afternoon at work )

 

And could you have a stab at this question please?

Yours in Christ

Matt </font>[/QUOTE]Good question, Matt. I imagine the answer may have something to do with an invisible Church--whatever that may be.