When you say "this was an historical constant", to what are you referring?
And that it means that nothing else is to be used in determining Truth on faith and morals?
By "it", do you mean "sola Scriptura"? Your comment is rich in pronouns, and not so rich in antecedents... :)
And that it negates the magisterial office and its Scriptural authority?
(?!?) Pardon? What on earth are you talking about?
And that the sufficiency aspect only refers to its formal aspect?
You really need to supply some context for these comments; it's reading like a raw copy/paste from a completely different conversation!
And that if souls are to ascertain the veracity of teaching by searching the Scriptures then it turns every man into being a pope?
This is still a bit vague, but... I'll give it a go.
If anyone presumes to interpret Scripture for him/herself, and assumes that they are incapable of error (either universally, or even "only in important matters") when doing so, it could be said that that person is arrogating to him/herself a power which God has entrusted to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church... and to the Pope, in particular. In that limited sense, the answer to your question is "yes".
And do you deny as that as progressively written (God giving more grace), Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, as is abundantly evidenced?
I'd need you to define your terms before I could answer that; some of those statements are so painfully vague that they could mean almost anything.
Ah. So you accept the Book of Mormon, then?
And that common men discerned both men and writings as being of God, without an infallible magisterium, and essentially due to their unique heavenly qualities and attestation? And which thus provides for a progressively established canon?
To the extent that I can figure out what you're saying: no, that didn't happen. When the Councils of the Church discerned the true books of Scripture, they did so in and through the Magisterium of the Catholic Church... and they did so infallibly. To suggest that such a process could have been done by "sola Scriptura" is patently absurd.
And that the Cath alternative to SS is what the Bible manifestly teaches, in which the church and what it says is the supreme law (sola ecclesia), under the premise of (conditional) ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility?
Forgive me, FRiend, but... that's not even a complete sentence. Could you please re-word that?
And that (as RCS state and argue) this is necessary for souls to correctly know what Scripture consists of and means?
First: where on earth are you getting this? What source are you using? Are these from some sort of formal Church documents, or are you manufacturing this on teh basis of what you've thought and heard about Catholics? Right now, I'm having a fiercely hard time understanding you; these sentences (or fragments) are--forgive me--anything but clear.
And under that premise it is impossible for Scripture to contradict what (at least) the supreme magisterium promulgates as Truth?
It is impossible that Scripture and Church dogma could contradict, yes.
And thus a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of official RC teaching on faith and morals by examination of warrant for such (for that reason) - at the least for "infallible teaching." For to do so would be to doubt the infallible claims of Rome for herself, and thus "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS)
First of all: you know that this was a papal encyclical addressing the French law which expelled Christianity (in its entirety) from the public sphere? Second: the comment which you quoted refers to the fact that only the Magisterium has the charism of infallibility, with regard to matters of faith and morals; all other persons and/or groups are subject to possible/probable error, when trying to interpret the Scriptures or Church Tradition or Church dogma. All those who claim that individuals somehow "can interpret any and all of the Scriptures rightly for themselves" are relying on wishful thinking.
And that RCs are to render religious assent (excluding public dissent) even to papal social teaching, such as Laudato si', or that they are to do what evangelicals do in examining the warrant for such obedience?
That is completely incorrect. Catholics are obliged to honor the pope, and they are obliged to assent to all Church dogma; they are not required to assent to every comment which drops from the mouth (or the pen) of the Holy Father. The Pope can be as fallible as anyone else, when not speaking "ex cathedra" or speaking a previously-defined truth; no Catholic is obliged to agree with (or assent to) the Pope's speculations on non-faith/non-moral issues such as so-called "global warming", and such.
These are questions you need to answer for your "not even close" denial.
I'd like to answer more... but I'll need you to clarify what you mean, first. Could you re-word, and/or illuminate your comments with examples of what you mean?
I thought that was obvious, meaning in the span of express Divine revelation.
And that it means that nothing else is to be used in determining Truth on faith and morals?
By "it", do you mean "sola Scriptura"? Your comment is rich in pronouns, and not so rich in antecedents... :)
Yes, SS was the subject, and as RCs often present SS as meaning that, thus "it" refers to that subject.
And that it negates the magisterial office and its Scriptural authority?
(?!?) Pardon? What on earth are you talking about?
A standard RC objection, that under SS its every man for himself, making them little popes, that it negates magisterial office and or its Scriptural authority. Glad if you knew better than that.
And that the sufficiency aspect only refers to its formal aspect?
You really need to supply some context for these comments; it's reading like a raw copy/paste from a completely different conversation!
Since you took it upon yourself to boldly declare the Bible doesn't teach "sola Scriptura", anywhere. Not even close" then we must presume you understand it and examined the arguments pro and con, but thus far apparently you are not not familiar with the debate. If you do not even know what formal versus material sufficiency is, among other things, then you can hardly deny what you do not understand.
And that if souls are to ascertain the veracity of teaching by searching the Scriptures then it turns every man into being a pope?
This is still a bit vague, but... I'll give it a go. If anyone presumes to interpret Scripture for him/herself, and assumes that they are incapable of error (either universally, or even "only in important matters") when doing so, it could be said that that person is arrogating to him/herself a power which God has entrusted to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church... and to the Pope, in particular. In that limited sense, the answer to your question is "yes".
Good, as that is not what SS means, as while RC argue that SS makes every man a pope, they cannot claim ensured personal infallibility whenever they speak according to a certain scope and subject criteria, nor can any office as per Rome, as that is a novelty which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture. Caiaphas does not equate to that.
Instead, Scriptural substantiation as the basis for veracity is the only basis we can appeal to.
And do you deny as that as progressively written (God giving more grace), Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, as is abundantly evidenced?
I'd need you to define your terms before I could answer that; some of those statements are so painfully vague that they could mean almost anything.
What is so incomprehensible about what i said?
Ah. So you accept the Book of Mormon, then?
How could you come up with that conclusion? Rather, due to the authority of Scripture then the BOM is exposed as demonic, and much Cath teaching as false.
And in reality, both Rome and the LDS operate under sola ecclesia, thus they are the supreme authority on what constitutes Truth, autocratically validating themselves.
And that common men discerned both men and writings as being of God, without an infallible magisterium, and essentially due to their unique heavenly qualities and attestation? And which thus provides for a progressively established canon?
To the extent that I can figure out what you're saying: no, that didn't happen. When the Councils of the Church discerned the true books of Scripture, they did so in and through the Magisterium of the Catholic Church... and they did so infallibly.
Wrong, as under that premise no writings or collection of books could be held as being the authoritative word of God before Rome, or without an infallible canon. Instead, since infallible souls discerned both men and writings as being of God, based upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, thus the NT church began.
And that the Cath alternative to SS is what the Bible manifestly teaches, in which the church and what it says is the supreme law (sola ecclesia), under the premise of (conditional) ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility?
Forgive me, FRiend, but... that's not even a complete sentence. Could you please re-word that?
It is a complete sentence based upon the presupposition from which the rest proceeds from, that the Bible manifestly teaches the alternative to SS, which is described (and confirmed by papal teaching). If you cannot comprehend such argumentation then why are you making polemical assertions?.
And that (as RCS state and argue) this is necessary for souls to correctly know what Scripture consists of and means?
First: where on earth are you getting this? What source are you using? Are these from some sort of formal Church documents, or are you manufacturing this on teh basis of what you've thought and heard about Catholics? Right now, I'm having a fiercely hard time understanding you; these sentences (or fragments) are--forgive me--anything but clear.
As i am getting from Catholic teaching such as RCs look to for their claims, then it appears you are unfamiliar with them. For consistent with your denial that hat common men discerned both men and writings as being of God, without an infallible magisterium, Dulles states,
People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. Even the most qualified scholars who have access to the Bible and the ancient historical sources fall into serious disagreements about matters of belief.†- Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,†p. 72;
And as the CE states,
.the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
And Providentissimus Deus:
the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt outside of the Church, and cannot be expected to be found in writers who, being without the true faith, only gnaw the bark of the Sacred Scripture, and never attain its pith.â€
For RCs see common men as discerning both men and writings as being of God without an infallible magisterium as allowing for valid dissent based upon Scriptural substantiation which dissent from their sacred mag. they disallow.
It is impossible that Scripture and Church dogma could contradict, yes. '
Which is based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
"the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS)
First of all: you know that this was a papal encyclical addressing the French law which expelled Christianity (in its entirety) from the public sphere?
Which does not mean that you do not have to render religious assent to it.
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent , since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.
Second: the comment which you quoted refers to the fact that only the Magisterium has the charism of infallibility, with regard to matters of faith and morals; all other persons and/or groups are subject to possible/probable error, when trying to interpret the Scriptures or Church Tradition or Church dogma.
Says where? Not in the context, which is actually broad and without any conditions. And other papal teaching by the same Pius X as set forth by RCs themselves applies this submission broadly.
when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.
The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. - (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x
I addition there is Pius XI:
For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.
Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html
And as regards bishops:
to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.novusordowatch.org/est-sane-molestum-leo-xiii.htm
To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor....
Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.
On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en
But you decide what is valid teaching require assent based upon your judgment. A Protestant in essence.
All those who claim that individuals somehow "can interpret any and all of the Scriptures rightly for themselves" are relying on wishful thinking.
Which is another strawman of SS. No wonder you deny it is Scriptural. No, a SS cannot claims he can assuredly interpret any and all of the Scriptures rightly, which would be going beyond even being a pope, but it does presuppose that they can in general ascertain the veracity of Truth claims based upon the degree of Scriptural warrant, with the core Truths having the most warrant, and contention for them. Thus evangelicals have historically contended for the Truth we both concur on as well as against inventions of Rome.
An alternative is to argue that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth, excluding any valid dissent, at least publicly, and that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.
nd that RCs are to render religious assent (excluding public dissent) even to papal social teaching, such as Laudato si', or that they are to do what evangelicals do in examining the warrant for such obedience?
That is completely incorrect. Catholics are obliged to honor the pope, and they are obliged to assent to all Church dogma; they are not required to assent to every comment which drops from the mouth (or the pen) of the Holy Father. The Pope can be as fallible as anyone else, when not speaking "ex cathedra" or speaking a previously-defined truth; no Catholic is obliged to agree with (or assent to) the Pope's speculations on non-faith/non-moral issues such as so-called "global warming", and such.
>That is incorrect except perhaps as meaning "every comment which drops from the mouth," which was not the argument. For as shown already, Catholics are obliged to render religious assent (which excludes public dissent), to non-fallible teaching, which encyclicals require as shown already, including those on social teaching, as such is based upon RC teaching on faith and morals.
http://catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html , there are three kinds of magisterial statement, three levels of authoritative teaching which establish the “the order of the truths to which the believer adheres.â€[1] They are (1) truths taught as divinely revealed, (2) definitively proposed statements on matters closely connected with revealed truth, and (3) ordinary teaching on faith and morals. A fourth category, ordinary prudential teaching on disciplinary matters, is commonly accepted by theologians and can be inferred from the text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s Donum Veritatis.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM: According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium n.25, even non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful. While not requiring the assent of faith, they cannot be disputed nor rejected publicly, and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the one possessing the fullness of teaching authority.
The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states, 80. In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. … Insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching, the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it. - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity. - Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2037.
And it is evidenced that the popes last encyclical (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy, which he presents his teaching as based upon Catholic teaching.
And HUMANI GENERI not only affirms that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters demands consent, it also teaches that if "the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians."
And while Laudato si', largely serves to promote discussion, he clearly teaches that Climate Change is a reality, a global problem, as shown in this FR post..
I'd like to answer more... but I'll need you to clarify what you mean, first. Could you re-word, and/or illuminate your comments with examples of what you mean?
There should be no real need to if you are going to presume to make such denials, while by God's grace you have enough to chew on that refutes you already.