How Do Catholics Form Doctrines?

[dairygirl4u2c]

one flesh could mean you are one even with many spouses. and when married you cant ivorce, een if the marriage has many people n it.

 

even fornication is said to be wrong but never defined. just "inlawful sex". premarital sex isnt explictly forbidden. the worst was a guy had to pay a father for violating property right if she was a virgin. aside from that, silent. i think many justified to themself premarital sex. i think the erotic story of lovers in the OT sounded premarital too and acted like it was just youthful dalliances at worst.

this point could be used to as argument for an interpreter.

even masturbation isnt singled out in the bible.

"whoever looks at a woman w lusyt does adulyery" it says but i thoghut it meant first impression "if u could u would commit actual adultery" is what was prohibited

[Apotheoun]

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

 

How is that text to be understood?  Some people (i.e., the Apollinarians) said that it meant that the eternal Logos assumed flesh, with the Logos replacing the human soul; while others (i.e., the Fathers of the Catholic Church) said that it meant that the Logos assumed a complete human nature (i.e., body and soul), and truly became man.  The wording of the text by itself is open to either of the two viewpoints, but of course the latter position is the one that was traditionally upheld by the Church Fathers as properly corresponding to the Church's ancient rule of faith.

 

Edited February 15, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Evangetholic]

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

 

How is that text to be understood?  Some people (i.e., the Apollinarians) said that it meant that the eternal Logos assumed flesh, with the Logos replacing the human soul; while others (i.e., the Fathers of the Catholic Church) said that it meant that the Logos assumed a complete human nature (i.e., body and soul), and truly became man.  The wording of the text by itself is open to either of the two viewpoints, but of course the latter position is the one that was traditionally upheld by the Church Fathers as properly corresponding to the Church's ancient rule of faith.

 

You are speaking to me as if I think Tradition and the way Christians have read the Bible historically is pointless (no one worth mentioning believes this now or ever has). 1. The "Church Fathers" were my Church Fathers too.  2. Christ's dual humanity and deity are both evident in the Book.
 

[dairygirl4u2c]

"in light of Christian history"

if a person goes with history tho, or normative teachings.... then this poster is basically using the "church" to interpret scripture etc. the argument then is why the catholic one?
even Apo has to sympathize w that somewhat. the only ones who mite be able to claim sole truth is the catholics, roman.

[Evangetholic]

Sola Scriptura asserts the primacy of scripture--not its exclusivity. Only people from very fringe movements or ill-formed Low Church Protestants think this way--the doctrine was never formed in the way it is consistently misrepresented by Cathodox Christians.

The Protestant (the classical Protestant, not necessarily American Evangelicals) would say that tradition can contain things that are opposed to the Bible. The Protestant would say the church, sacred as she is, is subject to error than she can fail her lord--the Cathoic says Tradition is revelation and that the Church is infallible.

[Apotheoun]

. . .

 

No reasonable reading of the Bible in light of Christian history and the plain meaning of words could allow for polygamy. People saying random things about the Bible does not render the Bible unclear, it just exposes man as sinful.

Okay, so you really do not believe in sola scriptura; instead, you believe in reading the Bible in the "light of Christian history."  Interesting.

 

I agree with you final comment, because men are sinful, and that is all the more reason why they need a guide to help them understand the scriptures clearly, which is what the episode in Acts between the Ethiopian Eunuch and Philip reveals:

 

"And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can'dace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, 'Go up and join this chariot.' So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, 'Do you understand what you are reading?' And he said, 'How can I, unless some one guides me?' And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him."

Sola Scriptura asserts the primacy of scripture--not its exclusivity. Only people from very fringe movements or ill-formed Low Church Protestants think this way--the doctrine was never formed in the way it is consistently misrepresented by Cathodox Christians.

The Protestant (the classical Protestant, not necessarily American Evangelicals) would say that tradition can contain things that are opposed to the Bible. The Protestant would say the church, sacred as she is, is subject to error than she can fail her lord--the Cathoic says Tradition is revelation and that the Church is infallible.

If it only means primacy, it follows that the term sola is being misused.  How can scripture even have primacy when it nowhere states what is or is not scripture.  After all, the canon of scripture is not to be found in scripture.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Evangetholic]

Okay, so you really do not believe in sola scriptura; instead, you believe in reading the Bible in the "light of Christian history."  Interesting.

 

I agree with you final comment, because men are sinful, and that is all the more reason why they need a guide to help them understand the scriptures clearly, which is what the episode in Acts between the Ethiopian Eunuch and Philip reveals:

 

"And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can'dace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, 'Go up and join this chariot.' So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, 'Do you understand what you are reading?' And he said, 'How can I, unless some one guides me?' And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him."

 

This is a verse I've spent two years pondering. And I have no satisfactory answer for you, my inclination is not  to claim it's pointing towards an inafllible church, but honestly that is one of the only ways that verse makes sense to me.

Okay, so you really do not believe in sola scriptura; instead, you believe in reading the Bible in the "light of Christian history."  Interesting.

 

I agree with you final comment, because men are sinful, and that is all the more reason why they need a guide to help them understand the scriptures clearly, which is what the episode in Acts between the Ethiopian Eunuch and Philip reveals:

 

"And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can'dace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, 'Go up and join this chariot.' So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, 'Do you understand what you are reading?' And he said, 'How can I, unless some one guides me?' And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him."

If it only means primacy, it follows that the term sola is being misused.  How can scripture even have primacy when it nowhere states what is or is not scripture.  After all, the canon of scripture is not to be found in scripture.

 

Sola as sole infallible guide. To say that the Pope is the "only" living German Pope but to say that he is not the "only" German priest does not mean I've missused the word "only"
 

[Apotheoun]

So you really believe in prima scriptura and not sola scriptura.  But I still have a problem with that, because the canon of scripture is not a part of scripture; instead, it is a part of the Church's liturgical and canonical tradition.  

 

In Eastern Christianity the scriptures are held to be a part of the overall tradition of the Church, which comes to us from the Lord through His holy apostles.  The written word is important, but the spoken word is more important.  It is the word that is heard that helps to give birth to faith.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Evangetholic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

So you really believe in prima scriptura and not sola scriptura.  But I still have a problem with that, because the canon of scripture is not a part of scripture; instead, it is a part of the Church's liturgical and canonical tradition.  

 

In Eastern Christianity the scriptures are held to be a part of the overall tradition of the Church, which comes to us from the Lord through His holy apostles.  The written word is important, but the spoken word is more important.  It is the word that is heard that helps to give birth to faith.

 

I agree with the last clause of the second sentence of your first paragraph. Still not feeling the contradiction.

[Apotheoun]

. . .

Sola as sole infallible guide. To say that the Pope is the "only" living German Pope but to say that he is not the "only" German priest does not mean I've missused the word "only"
 

Inerrant and infallible are words commonly used among Western Christians (Catholic and Protestant), and while those words are used sometimes by Eastern Christians, there usage is not traditional.  The Eastern Fathers speak of both scripture and the Church as being "god-inspired" or "god-bearing." 

 

Moreover, unlike Protestants, who focus so intently upon the written word, Eastern Christians when speaking about the Word of God are normally referring to Christ, the living Word of the Father.  It is important to remember that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, He did not become a book.

. . .  Still not feeling the contradiction.

You do not see the contradiction because you accept the theological presuppositions put forward by the Protestant Reformers, while I do not.  Reformation theology is utterly foreign to the mindset of Eastern Christians.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Evangetholic]

No the Logos is most assuredly not a book. I can agree with the Eastern Fathers describing both the church  and the bible as "God-Inspired" and "God-Bearing," but honestly the more I look into the traditions of the East the surer I become that I must be a Roman Catholic or a Protestant. (thinking icons, substitutionary atonement as a heresy, non-evangelism, divorce, etc.)

Inerrant and infallible are words commonly used among Western Christians (Catholic and Protestant), and while those words are used sometimes by Eastern Christians, there usage is not traditional.  The Eastern Fathers speak of both scripture and the Church as being "god-inspired" or "god-bearing." 

 

Moreover, unlike Protestants, who focus so intently upon the written word, Eastern Christians when speaking about the Word of God are normally referring to Christ, the living Word of the Father.  It is important to remember that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, He did not become a book.

You do not see the contradiction because you accept the theological presuppositions put forward by the Protestant Reformers, while I do not.  Reformation theology is utterly foreign to the mindset of Eastern Christians.

 

Should someone care what's foreign to the mindset of Eastern Christians? Icons sound a lot like idols to both Catholics and Protestants (not saying they are--jusr saying "Big whoop about your mindset" ).

[dairygirl4u2c]

surprised no one cited. 2 Thes. 15, ¹⁵ Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

 

also it just depends on how one frames "sola scrip" one can say they just mean its the only final authority even if it needs help to be interpreted. another can argue "prima scrip" should be used.. mire accurate. but really either can be used, just depends on context meant.

[Apotheoun]

. . . 

Should someone care what's foreign to the mindset of Eastern Christians? Icons sound a lot like idols to both Catholics and Protestants (not saying they are--jusr saying "Big whoop about your mindset" ).

Only in the sense that it shows that your way of approaching these issues is only one way of doing so, and a rather recent way - historically speaking.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Evangetholic]

surprised no one cited. 2 Thes. 15, ¹⁵ Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

 

also it just depends on how one frames "sola scrip" one can say they just mean its the only final authority even if it needs help to be interpreted. another can argue "prima scrip" should be used.. mire accurate. but really either can be used, just depends on context meant.

 

The doctrine as formulate by the reformers is not intended to reject other sources of authority, rather, it subjects those sources to the Bible. And further it repudiates the idea that one owes the same meekness, docility, and non-resistance to tradition as the Bible. If, and I am not conceding that it would, this might be better stated as Prima Scriptura, then what of it?  We say Trinity and not Three-One-ism.

 

The words used to describe the thing seem to be of much less importance than the thing itself. We'd not want to be like the kind of person described like this: he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions (1 Timothy 6:4)

[dairygirl4u2c]

i find no disareements or squabbles w whats been said by Evang