Sorry for the delay, but let me say first that this has been educational and edifying, but it is taking up a lot of time, and despite simplistic and superficial characterizations of the conflict, which i myself know are easy to make, there is a reason why the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification took 30 years, and within a coherent conclusion on the main issues was a long time coming. Below is my latest additions to this addition to this, and due to time and energy constrains, and before the snow hits, i am sending it without all the editing it should have, nor will i likely continue to engaged in this almost month-long thread much longer. While you must accept what Rome says, I am attempting to let the truth lead where it may, while i see the issue being more than precise definitions, but how they translate into Biblical conversions, which is my larger burden. Souls need to come to God as per Ps. 34:18, with “in my hands no price i bring, simply to Thy cross i cling,” resting in Christ as Savior, becoming born again, and responding to Him as Lord, to the glory of God. And i find what Rome and certain institutionalized Protestant churches officially and or effectually teach as working against that.
Sola (not “solo”) Scriptura, or the supremacy of Scripture, in which the Scriptures are the only supreme and assuredly infallible objective authority on earth for spiritual truth and morals, normally formally sufficient to save, and materially providing for the church and its magisterium, but it and all other mortals and teachings are subject to the Scripture. This is set in contrast to “Sola Ecclesia,” in which the Roman Catholic assuredly infallible magisterium (being infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallible defined criteria) is the only supreme, assuredly infallible authority on earth.
My objection is to the to "onlys". Indeed the Scripture is inerrant as written by its human authors. But from nowhere does it follow that it is the only inerrant thing in matters of faith and morals.
One sentence here can be “inerrant” and Rome can teach something that is, but the issue is assured infallibility, and as Scripture is the only objective source that is wholly God-breathed and thus it is uniquely assuredly infallible, while nowhere is there a promise that whatever the church magisterium ever teaches in accordance with its criteria will be infallible truth. If thre was, it could infallibly claim it was that church based upon its infallible interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition. The faith of Israel was preserved apart from an AIM, and God know hows to raise up men whose authority is attested to by their works and Scriptural conformity to reprove those who ought to ensure such but officially fail. See also replies below.
It is also true that the Magisterium of the Church is "subject" to the scripture in the sense that it may not teach contrary to it.
No, it can claim it is, and thus it is, according to itself. It is even doubtful that in defining something that its reasoning behind its conclusion is considered assuredly infallible. Its claim to infallibility does not rest on manifestation of the truth but effectively rests on its own declaration to be infallible.
However, the scripture itself poses no objection to the authority of the Church, -- in fact it asserts it; the common sense tells us that Sola Scriptura could not have been the rule of faith at least in the Early Church where the relevant to the Christian scripture was simply not written nor that that was in due course written, canonized.
The principle behind SS does not require canonization, but at any given time once a writing is established as Divine then it becomes the authority by which continued revelation or influence must be judged by. (Many SS churches regularly hope that God “speaks” to believers hearts, especially during the offering!) The authority of Moses, Jesus and the apostles was established by their character, works and Scripture substantiation.
The truth is that the Hoyl Scripture itself is a product (in varying senses ranging from authorship to canonization and proper exegesis) of the Living Magisterium at the time.
What magisterium? Most of the Bible was from the Jews, writings being established as Divine apart from an AIM, and even then a large portion came through prophets who reproved the official magisterium, and whose authority did not essentially rest upon hereditary formal conference as with the Levites, but by Divine attestation, and were subject to death for abusing their authority. There was a reason why Jesus referred to the baptism of John and His own works and Scripture as proof of His authority, and as said, such is the basis for authority now, in due proportion to their claims. And essentially writings themselves came to be established as Divine due to their heavenly qualities. And while official decrees help by ratifying what has been manifest as from God, that does not confer assured infallibly to that body.
The salient facts are that the scripture does not contain a proper definition of Sola Scriptura yet if Sola Scriptura were the true rule of faith, it itself would logically have to be in the scripture.
The salient facts are that the scripture does not contain a “proper definition” of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, transubstantiation, Purgatory, etc., but most Roman Catholics apologists have no reticence about insistenting they are Scriptural (and the 1st 2 are). And like as the Deity of Christ is established due to His coming forth from the Father and attribution of attributes unique to God, so Scripture alone is said to be God-breathed, being given through holy men “moved by the Holy Ghost,” and able to make men perfect unto every good work, (2Cor., 3:16,17) materially providing for the church.
The salient fact is that Jesus surely did establish the Church (leaving aside for a moment arguing whether the Church He founded was Catholic in the narrow or some broader sense), -- but He never instructed anyone to write down anything. Christ intended the Church to be the rule of faith, and the Church produced the Christian scripture as part of her mission.
The “Jesus only” hermeneutic is a fallacious, as there are other things we can disallow by it (homosexuals try). The fact is that God commanded His words to be written numerous times, as that was the norm for revelation, and referenced them for authority. And they have a power all their own, even apart from the body God uses to express them. That God uses men to express His word (and writing Scripture was not a formal work of the magisterium) and compile it does not render them the infallible interpreters of it, even though conditional obedience to Scriptural authority may be required. And the authenticity of the church is dependent upon Scriptures and its attestation.
Faith comes by hearing the word of God, (Rm. 10:17) and only the Scriptures assuredly are, and by faith the church has its members (1Cor. 12:13) and endures by faith in the Christ (1Jn. 5:5) of the Scriptural gospel of God. (Romans 1:1-2; cf. Rm. 16:25,26)
and the majority [of the liberal Catholics are] in the West
Very true. Another reference to Kuraev's book. He says that while in the West the ecumenically-minded Roman Catholics are theological conservatives who long for an injection of Orthodox fundamentalism, in Russia the voices clamoring for speedy reunion with the Western Church are the liberals whose hope is to water down that very fundamentalism. I think he is correct on that.
The issue is who needs to move.
Or did you mean political liberalism and political conservatism? That, I think is due to the poorly defined political terms in the US. Catholicism is by definition conservative in the sense that it is oriented to the past event of the Incarnation and the Resurrection. We view the intervening time as something that is an obstacle to salvation of the souls, rather than any kind of "progress". But naturally, Catholics are more receptive to the forms of primitive socialism of the Early Church, condmenation of greed as a motivating factor, charity to especially the poor, -- the kind of things that the American Left pretends to have an interest in as well. On the other hand, the cultural liberalism of today: the indifferentism toward sexual norm, moral and philosophical relativism, the notion that a law is valid as soon as it is democratically enacted -- Catholicism would fight to the death, whereas there is no shortage of Protestant denominations falling over to the dark side on that.
No, and no; had you looked at the stats you should have seen that it was mainly liberal as regards key beliefs moral values, and in which your adversaries fare much better, though as in both cases, less each year. An RCA here once argued that such declension by Catholics was proof that Rome was the OTC, as the Bible foretells great apostasy. As for liberal Protestant denominations, they are typically closer to Rome in being institutionalized, treating all as Christians based upon birth or membership and nominal morality, with rote professions and lack of strong preaching, including the need for conversion. Rome has nothing to fear from them.
Roman Catholics show more concern over a liberal Catholic who becomes a conservative born again evangelical than when he was a nominal Catholic
Of course. The falling off the Mother Church is a consciously taken step toward death. One can sympathize with one who struggles with Catholicism from the outside and fails to find it. Falling off the embrace of the Church once experienced is simply a horrific act of deliberate destruction. The grief is the same grief as over the fall of Adam. Of course, the responsibility for the Reformation and its evil fruit is entirely with the Church, and that adds to the pain.
So if a John Kerry an multitudes like him could become a Bible believing born again Baptist then he would be taking a step toward death, and is like the fall of Adam?! Tis enough to make you a sedevacantist wishing for the days when Rome could imprison her enemies (do you?)
On the other hand, a shift in political affiliation is not really a big deal, so long as it is not in itself defying the Church. To put it in a few words, it bothers us when one joins the liberal reservation on the Catholic non-negotiables, - abortion, human cloning, gay "marriage", euthanasia and artificial insemination of humans. If one joins the liberals for some other reason, it is his choice.
And yet Catholics overall much support such, except abortion, but they still get more of them. I do know there is a line between tolerance and comprise, and do not want to judge, and all have different degrees of light and discernment, but I would dare to say that if one who voted for men like Ted Kennedy — and there are multitudes like him - are either not believers or who are much need of enlightenment. And that goes for the many churches who vote as if race and radical leftist ideology trumps Christian faith.
It was posted on Halloween, I believe.
the issue is assured infallibility, and as Scripture is the only objective source that is wholly God-breathed and thus it is uniquely assuredly infallible, while nowhere is there a promise that whatever the church magisterium ever teaches in accordance with its criteria will be infallible truth. If thre was, it could infallibly claim it was that church based upon its infallible interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition.
From scripture alone, we have both assurances regarding the authority of scripture and the authority of the Church; for the latter see Matthew 16:18 and Luke 22:31-32. But the Church, in the persons of the Evangelists and the Apostles, and the clergy that copied, edited and canonized it produced the New Testament to begin with. You cannot put the product before the producer.
Its claim to infallibility does not rest on manifestation of the truth but effectively rests on its own declaration to be infallible
But no one forces you to become Catholic; further, if you hold heretical doctrines of Protestantism, we ask you to leave (see Trent). So, no, the teaching of the Magisterium stands or falls on the merit of its content. This is, incidentally, no different than the authority of the scripture: many people read the New Testament and believe it, others read it and don't. Some read it and riducule it. Infallibility is not the same as coercive power.
The principle behind SS does not require canonization, but at any given time once a writing is established as Divine...
That seems self-contradictory, is it not? That is what canonization means, establishing of the Divine origin.
Annalex: the [Holy] Scripture itself is a product (in varying senses ranging from authorship to canonization and proper exegesis) of the Living Magisterium at the time.
Daniel: What magisterium?
In the case of the Old Testament, the Church made a determination to include the Septuagint in her liturgy; Luther later questioned the Deuterocanonicals. These are magisterial acts of the Church, or in case of Luther, an attempt to act as magister. In the case of the New Testament, the Holy Apostles and the Evangelists wrote it under divine dictation not as freelancers but as founders and bishops of the Church, claiming rightly the status of messengers of Christ (1 Corinthians 4:16, 11:1; 2 Peter 1:16, Jude 1:1-3).
The salient facts are that the scripture does not contain a “proper definition” of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, transubstantiation, Purgatory, etc., but most Roman Catholics apologists have no reticence about insistenting they are Scriptural
Well, indeed, -- but the Roman (as well as Eastern) Catholics never say that these doctrines automatically derive from the scripture alone. Surely you know that there is no shortage of non-Trinitarian communities of faith that all, -- at least those that came into existence after the Reformation -- claim direct and clear scriptural proof of their heresies. In the case of the Scripture alone, the burden is on the adherent of this strange doctrine to prove it from scripture alone. There is not similar burden on the Catholic Church that has divine authority to explain the scripture.
The “Jesus only” hermeneutic is a fallacious
I don't know what "Jesus only hermeneutics" is or why it is fallacious. We certainly can assume that Jesus encouraged or directed people to write down things but we do not have a scriptural evidence of it, and we do have a scriptural evidence that Jesus established the Church as authority on his behalf (Mt 16:18, 18:18, Mt 28:20, Jn 20:21-23).
Faith comes by hearing the word of God, (Rm. 10:17) and only the Scriptures assuredly are, and by faith the church has its members (1Cor. 12:13) and endures by faith in the Christ (1Jn. 5:5) of the Scriptural gospel of God. (Romans 1:1-2; cf. Rm. 16:25,26)
The error in this statement is "only", and that one comes without a scriptural corroboration.
who needs to move.
No one: the Orthodox Church is essentially Catholic as it is. They have some problem with us, we do not have a problem with them.
was mainly liberal as regards key beliefs moral values
On "social justice", perhaps. On life and family, the Catholic Church is staunchly conservative. Which other community of faith teaches that contraception is mortal sin or marriage after divorce is impossible?
if a John Kerry an multitudes like him could become a Bible believing born again Baptist then he would be taking a step toward death, and is like the fall of Adam?!
Yes, he would be. There is a lot wrong with John Kerry, including his defiance of Catholicism, but Catholicism in itself, and to the extent that he believes like a Catholic, is not one of those things.
I would dare to say that if one who voted for men like Ted Kennedy — and there are multitudes like him - are either not believers or who are much need of enlightenment
Yes, of course. But those who vote for pro-death politicians do so against the will of the Catholic Church.