It is a false dichotomy to say you have to pick between the scriptures as absolute authority or tradition. They are not necesssrily opposed or somehow at odds with each other Roman Catholics don't believe that. They don't put tradition over the scriptures. It's a kind of straw man for their belief.
Protestant feeling the pull of Catholicism questions
11,278 Views |
181 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Captain Pablo
They do on this board, all the time. And you do frequently as well, although your posts are not consistent.Quote:
They don't put tradition over the scriptures.
Seriously. I am not trying to be argumentative. These points are not controversial, but clear differences between the two positions. Each person needs to decide for themselves which position is correct, but the understandings between the two positions are not really open to debate.
If you interpret scripture through the lens of Roman Catholic historic tradition then by default you are asserting tradition over scripture. That is entirely what the reformation was about.
Jabin said:They do on this board, all the time. And you do frequently as well, although your posts are not consistent.Quote:
They don't put tradition over the scriptures.
No, I don't. If you think that I do, I have either been unclear or you have misunderstood.
Interpretation is inevitable. If you interpret scripture at all you are putting some interpretive lens over the text. Would you say if you interpret through the baptist tradition you're asserting tradition over scripture?
I suspect no Roman Catholic is going to agree with either of the statements you made as accurate descriptions of their beliefs. Where does that leave you?
I suspect no Roman Catholic is going to agree with either of the statements you made as accurate descriptions of their beliefs. Where does that leave you?
How can you say that? They do constantly on this board. The refrain is posted over and over again that the "Church" takes precedence over Scripture.Quote:
I suspect no Roman Catholic is going to agree with either of the statements you made as accurate descriptions of their beliefs.
I really would like to see where someone said that. Do you remember who it was?
I mean, I'm an unbiased third party here. I'm not Protestant or RCC. Maybe you should ask a Catholic if they believe that?
I mean, I'm an unbiased third party here. I'm not Protestant or RCC. Maybe you should ask a Catholic if they believe that?
I have and it's clear and defined in their catechism. It appears you are the only one who is confused on this topic.Zobel said:
I really would like to see where someone said that. Do you remember who it was?
I mean, I'm an unbiased third party here. I'm not Protestant or RCC. Maybe you should ask a Catholic if they believe that?
Good gosh, you don't know yourself. You are very biased being very sympathetic to and almost invariably defensive of the RCC. And, as a former Southern Baptist, you are a prime example of the cliche that there's nothing worse than a reformed sinner. All of your posts are very antagonistic to SBs in particular and Protestants in general.
Many of my family are RCC and I've known several prominent RCC theologians, including at least one famous one who converted from Protestantism. OilManAg's posts are not at all out of synch with what is commonly taught within the RCC. You may be able to find some obscure writing of the RCC that contradicts what he posted, but it is very commonly taught and practiced within local RCC parishes. Virtually all of the RCC people I know who converted to Protestantism did so primarily because of that teaching - that works are an indispensable part of earning one's salvation, not the necessary fruit of salvation.
Many of my family are RCC and I've known several prominent RCC theologians, including at least one famous one who converted from Protestantism. OilManAg's posts are not at all out of synch with what is commonly taught within the RCC. You may be able to find some obscure writing of the RCC that contradicts what he posted, but it is very commonly taught and practiced within local RCC parishes. Virtually all of the RCC people I know who converted to Protestantism did so primarily because of that teaching - that works are an indispensable part of earning one's salvation, not the necessary fruit of salvation.
Where in the catechism does it say that the church takes precedence over scripture?
Words matter. Do you think that the RCC teaches that salvation is earned?
You didn't answer my question here. I asked you:Quote:
If you interpret scripture through the lens of Roman Catholic historic tradition then by default you are asserting tradition over scripture. That is entirely what the reformation was about.
How do you see the difference between person A interpreting scripture and person B? Does it matter if person A is a bishop in the RCC and person B is a layperson in a non-denom evangelical church? What's the essential difference between the two acts of interpreting?Quote:
Would you say if you interpret through the baptist tradition you're asserting tradition over scripture?
OilManAg91 said:I have and it's clear and defined in their catechism. It appears you are the only one who is confused on this topic.Zobel said:
I really would like to see where someone said that. Do you remember who it was?
I mean, I'm an unbiased third party here. I'm not Protestant or RCC. Maybe you should ask a Catholic if they believe that?
I'm a catholic. I've put thousands of hours into researching our tradition and faith. I can say definitively that both you and Jabin are very, very wrong. Either that, or naive.
Everyone interprets the Bible. Is John 6 "eat my body" literal or figurative? Is a camel going through the eye of the needle literal or figurative? Is 6 day creation literal or allegorical? I can go on. Regardless of how you answer, someone will answer differently and they will cite the very Bible itself as their source. It is absolute and utter nonsense to think that an interpretation outside of the Bible is not being used.
Secondly, a catholic does not believe salvation is earned. Justification is not earned. I can cite plenty of documents if you'd like. I have been here awhile and have never seen a Catholic forward this view. It is much more likely that you are reading what you want into it.
I agree there is a dichotomy between once saved, always saved and our view, but either way works are a part of it. One side says that works are merely proof you are saved. If you somehow stop doing the works then you were just fake saved. Or in the extreme view, you're still saved even though you're now an atheist that promotes abortion. The other side says that once you have become a Christian you must continue to cooperate with Christian teaching in the form of works. The works themselves have absolutely zero redeeming value of any kind. That's all Jesus.
ETA: sorry to the OP. This got hijacked. I will second the poster who recommended RCIA and I would further recommend that if you have parish options because you are in a large city, look for one that has a reputation for tradition. I'll pray for you and unity through all denominations so that we can stop lobbing grenades at each other and simply search for truth as you are.
God gave you a brain. Use it to read the most authentic and accurate translation of the original scripture. Don't rely on me, a priest, a theologian, the pope, the Greek Orthodox Church, a minister or anyone else. The scriptures were written for common people to understand +/- 100 AD so there is no reason anyone today can't read them for themselves and understand the fundamental message (it's called the perspecuity of scripture). It's really not a difficult concept to grasp. Just take off your blinders and genuinely try to understand.
You didn't answer my question.
Don't interpret through any tradition. Read the words and see what it says. And yes it is possible. You are getting caught up in paradigms that don't matter. Ultimately what matters is what I believe, not what the Pope or anyone else interprets and tells me to believe.
OilManAg91 said:
Don't interpret through any tradition. Read the words and see what it says. And yes it is possible. You are getting caught up in paradigms that don't matter. Ultimately what matters is what I believe, not what the Pope or anyone else interprets and tells me to believe.
How do you feel when someone cites the Bible and says it teaches universalism? How do you feel when people say the Bible teaches abortion is ok? How do you feel when the Bible teaches the health and wealth gospel? How do you feel when people say the Bible teaches and LGBT agenda? How do you feel when people say the Bible teaches chattel slavery is ok?
If you believe john 6 is figurative, why do you believe that? Where did it come from? If you believe plucking out your eye is figurative, why? If you believe a rich person can still enter into heaven, how did you come to that conclusion? If you want to say you simply read it and came to that conclusion (using no other sermons or sources) how do you feel about people who came to different conclusions? Do they lack common sense?
The Bible has been used for many, many atrocities. This is actually one of the most effective arguments atheists have. So when you say someone can just read it and understand, you need to explain the above scenarios. And just saying "they're all a bunch of liars using it for their own ends" is the same as saying that a person who accepted Jesus and later recanted was just "never really saved". It's all incredibly subjective
You can't escape interpretive traditions. You appealed to one yourself - the perspicuity of scripture is an interpretive tradition that is not located in the text.
If you truly believe this I suppose you refuse to offer your opinion on what any particular passage means to anyone who asks. Including your children? But of course not, the very idea is absurd. And unscriptural I might add - as the Ethiopian eunuch told St Philip - how can I understand unless someone guide me? The scriptures themselves say that there are teachers, and that not everyone is called to be a teacher.
Since there is no doctrine of perspicuity of scripture in the scriptures themselves, where do you get the authority to teach such a thing? Or suggest others must follow it?
But three - where I suppose it really matters - what you're mistakenly calling tradition or interpretation is really authority. The question you're slowly winding toward here by the dead end of ability (can all interpret scripture? the common man is average, but what about those with disabilities? what about children?) is really better understood down the path of authority.
You are investing the authority to interpret scripture at the pure individual layer. Or at least that's what you're saying... I doubt when pressed you really believe it because such an idea is flatly unscriptural.
At the same time we should be careful of another false dichotomy that is opposed to this which denies the agency of any individual to read and understand and instead binds it up in some conceptual "church" or "hierarchy". Neither is true.
The fact of the matter is interpretive authority is invested in the community, comprised of individuals. This community, when filled with the Holy Spirit, is the Church, and the Church as community is where authority is exercised, through people. Each person within the community has a function to serve and benefit the community, and the world around us, as St Paul teaches. There is no way to access a conceptual person-less Church any more than there is a way to access a conceptual person-less God. We experience God through the Trinity, through the divine Persons, and we experience and actualize the Church as individuals comprising the Body of Christ. Indeed when we do that we are Christ to people, we are His Body. It should not be surprising that the pattern of understanding that has been revealed to us about the Creator of all things is reflected in His Church.
No individual has the authority in and of themselves to interpret scripture. Only as part of the Church; because is truly the authority of the Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, which interprets scripture and guides the Church.
If you truly believe this I suppose you refuse to offer your opinion on what any particular passage means to anyone who asks. Including your children? But of course not, the very idea is absurd. And unscriptural I might add - as the Ethiopian eunuch told St Philip - how can I understand unless someone guide me? The scriptures themselves say that there are teachers, and that not everyone is called to be a teacher.
Since there is no doctrine of perspicuity of scripture in the scriptures themselves, where do you get the authority to teach such a thing? Or suggest others must follow it?
But three - where I suppose it really matters - what you're mistakenly calling tradition or interpretation is really authority. The question you're slowly winding toward here by the dead end of ability (can all interpret scripture? the common man is average, but what about those with disabilities? what about children?) is really better understood down the path of authority.
You are investing the authority to interpret scripture at the pure individual layer. Or at least that's what you're saying... I doubt when pressed you really believe it because such an idea is flatly unscriptural.
At the same time we should be careful of another false dichotomy that is opposed to this which denies the agency of any individual to read and understand and instead binds it up in some conceptual "church" or "hierarchy". Neither is true.
The fact of the matter is interpretive authority is invested in the community, comprised of individuals. This community, when filled with the Holy Spirit, is the Church, and the Church as community is where authority is exercised, through people. Each person within the community has a function to serve and benefit the community, and the world around us, as St Paul teaches. There is no way to access a conceptual person-less Church any more than there is a way to access a conceptual person-less God. We experience God through the Trinity, through the divine Persons, and we experience and actualize the Church as individuals comprising the Body of Christ. Indeed when we do that we are Christ to people, we are His Body. It should not be surprising that the pattern of understanding that has been revealed to us about the Creator of all things is reflected in His Church.
No individual has the authority in and of themselves to interpret scripture. Only as part of the Church; because is truly the authority of the Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, which interprets scripture and guides the Church.
"No individual has the authority in and of themselves to interpret scripture. Only as part of the Church; because is truly the authority of the Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, which interprets scripture and guides the Church."
This is exactly the specific perspective of the Roman Catholic Church…the Greek Orthodox Church and all other Christian perspectives disagree with the RCC on this. You saying it doesn't make it correct. The RCC church saying it doesn't make it correct. You can use the authority of the Catholic Church all you want to back up your arguments, but it is a circular argument.
These issues are are quite clear and have been settled for many hundreds of years by all sides. The positions are not in flux. Clearly there are disagreements on which views are correct, but again that is more for each person to educate themselves on the issues and prayerfully decide for themselves.
Anyway I genuinely wish you all the best as your work through these issues, but I am out for now.
This is exactly the specific perspective of the Roman Catholic Church…the Greek Orthodox Church and all other Christian perspectives disagree with the RCC on this. You saying it doesn't make it correct. The RCC church saying it doesn't make it correct. You can use the authority of the Catholic Church all you want to back up your arguments, but it is a circular argument.
These issues are are quite clear and have been settled for many hundreds of years by all sides. The positions are not in flux. Clearly there are disagreements on which views are correct, but again that is more for each person to educate themselves on the issues and prayerfully decide for themselves.
Anyway I genuinely wish you all the best as your work through these issues, but I am out for now.
I'm Orthodox, so you are not correct in your understanding of the issue here.
The problem is you are so busy telling other people what they believe you don't even realize that you don't understand the actual differences between your beliefs and others. "No individual" includes, for example, clergy or the bishop of Rome as much as it includes any particular lay person. People don't have authority in and of themselves.
Do you think a person outside the Church has authority to interpret scripture? Does an atheist have authority to interpret scripture?
The problem is you are so busy telling other people what they believe you don't even realize that you don't understand the actual differences between your beliefs and others. "No individual" includes, for example, clergy or the bishop of Rome as much as it includes any particular lay person. People don't have authority in and of themselves.
Do you think a person outside the Church has authority to interpret scripture? Does an atheist have authority to interpret scripture?
Zobel said:
I'm Orthodox, so you are not correct in your understanding of the issue here.
The problem is you are so busy telling other people what they believe you don't even realize that you don't understand the actual differences between your beliefs and others. "No individual" includes, for example, clergy or the bishop of Rome as much as it includes any particular lay person. People don't have authority in and of themselves.
Do you think a person outside the Church has authority to interpret scripture? Does an atheist have authority to interpret scripture?
Even Catholics know the pope can't just declare something to be true. The magisterium is made up of many hundreds of very learned bishops, priests, documents, etc. I, for one, am glad the pope doesn't have full authority because the Lord only knows what pope Francis would declare tomorrow if he wasn't held back by the Church. Thank you for bringing some clarity here, Zobel.
To Oilman: go back and read your posts. Check for questioning versus declarative statements. I don't want to declare infallibly (a little humor to lighten to mood) that you are closed minded to what the Catholic Church believes, but you're showing very little interest in what an orthodox and Catholic are asking/saying about our positions.. Nothing is quite as insulting as being told what you believe instead of being asked.
to be sure there are some differences in understanding between the RCC and Orthodox in how authority works and whether the grace of the priesthood becomes a kind of personal ability or power of the priest, but you first have to get through the idea that the authority itself comes from Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Not a Catholic but agree.The Banned said:OilManAg91 said:I have and it's clear and defined in their catechism. It appears you are the only one who is confused on this topic.Zobel said:
I really would like to see where someone said that. Do you remember who it was?
I mean, I'm an unbiased third party here. I'm not Protestant or RCC. Maybe you should ask a Catholic if they believe that?
I'm a catholic. I've put thousands of hours into researching our tradition and faith. I can say definitively that both you and Jabin are very, very wrong. Either that, or naive.
Everyone interprets the Bible. Is John 6 "eat my body" literal or figurative? Is a camel going through the eye of the needle literal or figurative? Is 6 day creation literal or allegorical? I can go on. Regardless of how you answer, someone will answer differently and they will cite the very Bible itself as their source. It is absolute and utter nonsense to think that an interpretation outside of the Bible is not being used.
Secondly, a catholic does not believe salvation is earned. Justification is not earned. I can cite plenty of documents if you'd like. I have been here awhile and have never seen a Catholic forward this view. It is much more likely that you are reading what you want into it.
I agree there is a dichotomy between once saved, always saved and our view, but either way works are a part of it. One side says that works are merely proof you are saved. If you somehow stop doing the works then you were just fake saved. Or in the extreme view, you're still saved even though you're now an atheist that promotes abortion. The other side says that once you have become a Christian you must continue to cooperate with Christian teaching in the form of works. The works themselves have absolutely zero redeeming value of any kind. That's all Jesus.
ETA: sorry to the OP. This got hijacked. I will second the poster who recommended RCIA and I would further recommend that if you have parish options because you are in a large city, look for one that has a reputation for tradition. I'll pray for you and unity through all denominations so that we can stop lobbing grenades at each other and simply search for truth as you are.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
These 3 guys do this for a living, and are very scriptural, funny, knowledgeable, and convincing about all of the lies told about us by prots....
https://chnetwork.org/on-the-journey-show/
https://chnetwork.org/on-the-journey-show/
The Banned said:OilManAg91 said:
The Reformation was concerned with these two central issues:
- is the ultimate source of truth scripture in its original form (sola scripture) or is Roman Catholic tradition primary with scripture as secondary
Out of the answer to this question comes:
- are we made right with God through the free gift of grace through faith in Christ with good works as evidence of salvation (that is the works do not contribute to salvation so you can have assurance of your salvation because it is a free gift that cannot be lost) vs salvation is through faith + works (that is good works are required to earn salvation so you can never be sure you have done enough to be saved and/or you can lose your salvation if you don't do enough good works).
All the other questions about sacraments, liturgy, infallibility, style of service, doctrine, etc, etc, etc evolve out of these topics. I encourage you to read the Bible (specifically Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians…the ESV is the most literal to the original text from a scholarship perspective) along with numerous other good books, study, pray and talk with mature Christians all you can to settle the above 2 points.
Ultimately everything depends on the answers to these 2 questions.
Quick point of clarification about "earning" salvation. The Catholic Church has never taught this. Luther was incorrect and we have documents that preceded him by many years to prove it. It's why Lutherans, Methodist, Anglicans and Catholics were able to sign a joint declaration of faith. Luther was a priest that didn't know what his own faith taught, but to his credit, he did see some priests abusing indulgences.
https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-the-catholic-church-come-around-to-the-lutheran-position-on-faith-justification-and-works
Quick point of clarification.
The only Lutheran group in America that is part of the LWF is the ELCA. If you want to see being aligned with them as a win or success, more power to you, but there's a reason none of the truly conservative Lutheran Synods are not in fellowship with them.
Zobel said:
It is a false dichotomy to say you have to pick between the scriptures as absolute authority or tradition. They are not necesssrily opposed or somehow at odds with each other Roman Catholics don't believe that. They don't put tradition over the scriptures. It's a kind of straw man for their belief.
Claiming it as a false dichotomy doesn't make it a false dichotomy.
The very valid question during the Reformation, that stands today, is what the source and norm of christian doctrine?
The Reformation said it was the Scriptures. Rome may say Scriptures, but only through the Magisterium, which of course raises the question, who has the real authority.
Simple example.
The pope is the Supreme Authority and Head of the Church with the ability to speak infallible.
Does the Scripture say that's the case? I presume you would agree with me that there's no clear passages to make that argument.
The Magisterium declares it to be infallible true and so this is the position of Rome.
Who was the actual authority in this example? The Scriptures or the Magisterium?
Not this Protestant.Thaddeus73 said:
These 3 guys do this for a living, and are very scriptural, funny, knowledgeable, and convincing about all of the lies told about us by prots....
https://chnetwork.org/on-the-journey-show/
I find it very off putting when somebody thinks they know better than actual practicing Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, whatever what they believe.
Seems strange and arrogant.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Fair enough. My understanding was this was before they went off the rails, but I didn't pay much attention to them back in the 90s.
Either way, this is a formal declaration that the Catholic Church does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that works are what get us into Heaven.
Either way, this is a formal declaration that the Catholic Church does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that works are what get us into Heaven.
ok? and saying it isn't one doesn't make is not, either.
here is the statement
it also assumes that in this case RCC tradition is at odds with scripture. if they teach the same thing it is nonsense to ask which is the ultimate source of truth. note that i don't believe that all RCC teaching is correct, but that doesn't make this statement true.
it is also mixed with a whole lot of extra-scriptural baggage like the appeal to "original form" (what is that, do we have it today, and how would you know if we did?). i actually find the idea of the scriptures as the ultimate source of truth idolatrous; Christ is the Truth, the scriptures reveal Him and witness to Him but they are not themselves the source of anything. Even our reading of the scriptures - which are reliable, infallible, and God-breathed - is informed and illuminated by the Holy Spirit.
the whole thing is a mess.
here is the statement
this is a false dichotomy on a couple of levels. the biggest one is simply that the second part of the statement isn't what the RCC teaches. it is a caricature of their position. there is another option, which is an unstated third way. that's the definition of a false dichotomy.Quote:
is the ultimate source of truth scripture in its original form (sola scripture)
or is Roman Catholic tradition primary with scripture as secondary
it also assumes that in this case RCC tradition is at odds with scripture. if they teach the same thing it is nonsense to ask which is the ultimate source of truth. note that i don't believe that all RCC teaching is correct, but that doesn't make this statement true.
it is also mixed with a whole lot of extra-scriptural baggage like the appeal to "original form" (what is that, do we have it today, and how would you know if we did?). i actually find the idea of the scriptures as the ultimate source of truth idolatrous; Christ is the Truth, the scriptures reveal Him and witness to Him but they are not themselves the source of anything. Even our reading of the scriptures - which are reliable, infallible, and God-breathed - is informed and illuminated by the Holy Spirit.
the whole thing is a mess.
Which will lead us to all the rebuttals you've undoubtably heard:
- who had the authority to determine canon?
- who had authority to determine official teaching prior to the all books of the Bible being written?
- who had the authority to determine official teaching prior to even the first book being written?
- once they were written and complied, who had the authority to determine what difficult passages meant ?
- who had the authority to define the Trinity?
- who had the authority to settle disagreements/heresies?
- who had the authority to determine whether or not a man was worthy of becoming a teacher/pastor/priest in the church?
- who had the authority to say in the Bible alone, when Bible alone isn't in scripture?
- as Zobel has said, who had the authority to declare the Bible is perfectly clear on all teachings (perpiscuity)
- who had the authority to say purgatory is real? Or not real?
- who had the authority to say that Jesus had a human and divine will?
- who had the authority to determine Arius was wrong?
We can have a lot of fun with these. And best part is that none of these was determined "by the pope". While Zobel and I would eventually find our disagreement should this conversation go long enough, I think he and I would agree that papal authority is not as simple as one man sitting in a chair and declaring whatever he feels like that day.
- who had the authority to determine canon?
- who had authority to determine official teaching prior to the all books of the Bible being written?
- who had the authority to determine official teaching prior to even the first book being written?
- once they were written and complied, who had the authority to determine what difficult passages meant ?
- who had the authority to define the Trinity?
- who had the authority to settle disagreements/heresies?
- who had the authority to determine whether or not a man was worthy of becoming a teacher/pastor/priest in the church?
- who had the authority to say in the Bible alone, when Bible alone isn't in scripture?
- as Zobel has said, who had the authority to declare the Bible is perfectly clear on all teachings (perpiscuity)
- who had the authority to say purgatory is real? Or not real?
- who had the authority to say that Jesus had a human and divine will?
- who had the authority to determine Arius was wrong?
We can have a lot of fun with these. And best part is that none of these was determined "by the pope". While Zobel and I would eventually find our disagreement should this conversation go long enough, I think he and I would agree that papal authority is not as simple as one man sitting in a chair and declaring whatever he feels like that day.
You went there before I did. I don't want to use the "idolatrous" word, but that's exactly what struck me last night. While I agree the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God, to say that God can ONLY be confined to what was written in there elevated the Bible over God Himself in a way. Especially since the Bible itself NEVER claims this. Attributing a power to the Bible that the Bible itself never claims is dangerous to me.
I am good friends with many Protestants. I don't believe that any Protestant actually idolize the Bible. But to think that God left anything and everything we need to know in a book that wouldn't be fully written for several decades, would not be defined for several centuries, would not widely distributed until the printing press all while the vast, vast majority of the population was illiterate doesn't add up for me
I am good friends with many Protestants. I don't believe that any Protestant actually idolize the Bible. But to think that God left anything and everything we need to know in a book that wouldn't be fully written for several decades, would not be defined for several centuries, would not widely distributed until the printing press all while the vast, vast majority of the population was illiterate doesn't add up for me
The Banned said:
Fair enough. My understanding was this was before they went off the rails, but I didn't pay much attention to them back in the 90s.
Either way, this is a formal declaration that the Catholic Church does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that works are what get us into Heaven.
They were off the rails from day one. Their official position is that the Lutheran Confessions or Bible can be ignored if necessary to support a position.
So if you're goal is to be able to point to random groups and say "the agree with us" that's fine.
Like I said, the are not in communion with any of the conservative Lutheran groups and there are big reasons. I wouldn't want to be associated with them, but that's no my call.
But I also think there's something else there. That it's not so much the Lutherans are recognizing that Rome "does not teach, nor has it ever taught..." but instead, it's an agreement that Rome has shifted it's view to be more in alignment with
If you want to see a far more cautious dialogue, I suggest the ILC
https://ilconline.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Final-Report-of-the-Theological-Conversations-between-ILC-and-RCC.pdf
This is the report. from the most recent conversation.
I thought this was an interesting summary of Justification by Faith:
"3.2 Justification by Faith We see convergences in that the Vatican II Constitution, Dei Verbum, brings the understanding of justification into a new personal context: "To make this act of faith, the grace of God and the interior help of the Holy Spirit must precede and assist, moving the heart and turning it to God, opening the eyes of the mind and giving 'joy and ease to everyone in assenting to the truth and believing it'". 45 Faith is a God-created receptivity for grace. As a consequence, faith exercises trust in God and love for the neighbour. In this sense, faith is man's personal "Yes" to God. In the Joint Declaration on Justification, this means "to have faith is to entrust oneself totally to God". 46 The Word of God is God's power to salvation for everyone who believes. Since it finally appeared in the Annex to JDDJ and was, moreover, cautiously approved in a catechesis delivered by Benedict XVI,47 the formula sola fide may no longer be the storm centre of ongoing differences (or, as some might put it, points of differentiation that threaten consensus reached). Lutherans distinguish but do not separate faith and love, while Catholics have an integral approach without identifying these two."
Zobel said:
ok? and saying it isn't one doesn't make is not, either.
here is the statementthis is a false dichotomy on a couple of levels. the biggest one is simply that the second part of the statement isn't what the RCC teaches. it is a caricature of their position. there is another option, which is an unstated third way. that's the definition of a false dichotomy.Quote:
is the ultimate source of truth scripture in its original form (sola scripture)
or is Roman Catholic tradition primary with scripture as secondary
it also assumes that in this case RCC tradition is at odds with scripture. if they teach the same thing it is nonsense to ask which is the ultimate source of truth. note that i don't believe that all RCC teaching is correct, but that doesn't make this statement true.
it is also mixed with a whole lot of extra-scriptural baggage like the appeal to "original form" (what is that, do we have it today, and how would you know if we did?). i actually find the idea of the scriptures as the ultimate source of truth idolatrous; Christ is the Truth, the scriptures reveal Him and witness to Him but they are not themselves the source of anything. Even our reading of the scriptures - which are reliable, infallible, and God-breathed - is informed and illuminated by the Holy Spirit.
the whole thing is a mess.
Your primary assumption is incorrect. It does not assume that RCC tradition is at odds with Scripture, though I would argue at times they are.
What is says that is that at the end of the day, the ultimate source that norms everything else is not the Scriptures, but the Magisterium.
Your last paragraph is just your opinion, but honestly somewhat nonsensical. Christ is the Truth? Absolutely and? We are guided by the Holy Spirit. Absolutely and?
What I always find most interesting, and what probably proves the point, is that in all of these discussions, the side of the EO and Rome will be to devalue the Scriptures. You have to devalue it in order to raise a higher view of the Church based on the definition of the Church you've chosen to follow. Admitting that presupposition would be a good start.
it seems by ignoring it you agree that the initial statement is a false dichotomy by way of the unspoken third option.
but the statement does of course require one to be at odds with the other. in order to make a value judgment between two things, you have to first separate them. it takes for granted the premise that you can make a distinction between where tradition ends and scripture begins. you can't - scriptures flow out of tradition, and tradition flows out of scripture. they are inseparable. scripture itself is an appeal to tradition by way of the question of "what is scripture?" tradition itself is an appeal to scripture by way of "what is recorded?"
you don't have to lower scripture. again, you're just taking the dichotomy presented for granted. the premise is false, so any relative weight between one and the other is similarly false.
it is as nonsensical as wanting to inquire which gospel is prime over the others. there are four - does that mean we must make one false to make the others equally true?
but the statement does of course require one to be at odds with the other. in order to make a value judgment between two things, you have to first separate them. it takes for granted the premise that you can make a distinction between where tradition ends and scripture begins. you can't - scriptures flow out of tradition, and tradition flows out of scripture. they are inseparable. scripture itself is an appeal to tradition by way of the question of "what is scripture?" tradition itself is an appeal to scripture by way of "what is recorded?"
you don't have to lower scripture. again, you're just taking the dichotomy presented for granted. the premise is false, so any relative weight between one and the other is similarly false.
it is as nonsensical as wanting to inquire which gospel is prime over the others. there are four - does that mean we must make one false to make the others equally true?