Posted on 10/17/2014 5:25:44 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
Think it was read at all?
Or just scoffed and and ignored?
you answered;
Irrelevant to you perhaps, but not irrelevant to the actual truth of the matters.
Here again, some highlights;
"In this connection, it is assuredly worthy of note that Luther, for instance, based his Catechisms, not on a carefully considered system of proofs, but quite simply on what are called the loci, the priciple deposits of faith, which he gathered together and explained: the Ten Commandments, the Our Father, the sacraments, the confession of faith. In doinig so, it might be added, he followed the most ancient catechetical traditions and thus differed in no formal way from the Catholic Church. ..."
That pretty much blows away the contention you made previously that Luther "invented" things. You claimed he did, then when pressed to show how he may have done so, answered with a bunch of substance-less 'smoke'.
"Granted, the sources that were to be discovered anew flowed first and above all in the Holy Scripture; but the search for a new way in which theology could assimilate what was said in the Scriptures and realize it in the Church led of it's own accord to the Fathers, to the era of the early Church, in which the waters of faith still flowed unpolluted and in all their freshness."
I will note here that Sola Scriptura as that can be rightfully understood -- does not block out tradition, or even block entirely out traditional understanding/interpretations of Scripture either particularly when those are closest to the source, as "...waters of faith still flowed unpolluted and in all their freshness."
Scripture over tradition, as in highest check of traditions -- we are getting closer.
He goes on with this acknowledged downgrading, as it were, or else if the "Fathers" were all that reliable as for scriptural exegesis, he would not need speak of them is the guarded fashion in which he does;
".... Assuredly, the Fathers are not, then, devoid of all significance for the modern scriptural exegete. At the very least, he will have to acknowledge them as witnesses to the text and as members of an age that was relatively close to the origin of the Scriptures; but the role that thus falls to them is a modest one that is, in any event, quite different from the concept of the normative power of the unanimus concensus Patrum with which we began." ...
Whoa, dude. Did you just catch that?
A confession of sorts! The previously (Vatican I) unanimous consent of the Fathers is now being confessed to being "quite different" than...what was that? Of the [ahem] "normative power", and that simply must be the "power" as it was long and normally considered and applied (in light of scriptural exegesis) since Council of Trent, which was then re-affirmed at Vatican I.
So now, since the writing of that which I quote, from 1978 publishing date...this big (but quietly executed, lol) downgrading of ECF's when it comes to them having been the foundational support -- not for "tradition" (they can be seen to disagree there also!) but as to how Scripture itself is understood.
As W. Webster put it; Trent initially promulgated this principle as a means of countering the Reformation teachings to make it appear that the Reformers’ doctrines were novel and heretical while those of Rome were rooted in historical continuity.
Not much in the way of "unanimous" support left, nowadays. The truth has finally put the lie to that 16th Century fiction written up (and likely believed to be true by the writers at the time?) at Council of Trent. We'll skip down to the last;
This insight can be deepened and it's content enriched. The fact already mentioned, namely, that Scripture is always read in some way under tutelage of certain "Fathers" can now be expressed in the more general formula that Scripture and the Fathers belong together as do word and answer. The two are not identical, are not of equal importance, The word is always first; the response, second---the order is not to be reversed."
Word of God -- OVER --- "certain" Fathers, showing there support for Sola Scriptura, and leaving unanimous consent seriously wounded (in comparison to where 'Rome' has traipsed off to with it, in the meantime). Wounded if not -- goodbye -- gone -- for there really never was entirely unanimous consent (agreement) among all the ECF's anyway -- regarding Scriptural interpretations.
Which is ok enough, and to be expected, but a entirely different picture has emerged now that more people, both inside and outside of the RCC have so much better, wider, deeper and more complete access to the fuller writings available writings of the ECF's then arguably most of the attendees of the Council of Trent had.
The author of what I quoted above is none other than Carl Ratzinger. Formerly Pope Benedict XVI, now known as Pope Emiritus. Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology
Nice guy.
But his writing undoes, knocks the supports out from under some long-held Romanist attitudes & opinions,although that is best gleaned and understood when reading the better part of a hundred pages or so, from about 110 to 180.
It bears saying again here that "sola scriptura" is one of five interdependent & interlocking solas. It also stands to mention that Luther, by Ratzinger's own assessment, came to see the RCC Church of his own era as the enemy of salvation itself -- particularly the common man --so he [Luther] had to work against it, even as he was trapped within it in his thinking, all of his life...
The principle I have been discussing is not reliant upon Ratzinger of course, yet within that man's own writing, support for the idea (read that last line, quoted and enlarged above again) is very solid for how sola scriptura is classically recognized and described by "Protestant" theologians.
Turning the principle into something else, using some other descriptive means may be comforting for RC polemicists who desire to shoot it down or suppress it as much as possible, but they must first make a straw-man out of it (subtly change the definition) to make any progress against it.
Or just scoffed and and ignored?
Scoffed and ignored -- but perhaps not by all.
And for the record --- not refuted. Just denied. That's all.
Please ignore the insetting of the last portion of comment which is directly beneath the link I supplied to the book which I was sourcing text from.
The insetting could make it look like those were Ratzinger's words, there at the end. Those -- were not.
But the rest of the inset portions WERE Ratzinger's own words, despite possible typo's of my own remaining there.
Like I said initially, I had to type it all out by hand.
As I said: It’s irrelevant. Besides, if you actually read the book, you sould see he makes it clear on pages 95, 96, 101, and 223 that sola scriptura is a false and inadequate doctrine. But, I guess, the truth does not really fit into twilight world.
“I notice there is some poor formatting there at the end of the last which I just posted to you.”
Since it was irrelevant, it really didn’t matter in any case.
“Like I said initially, I had to type it all out by hand.”
You wasted your time. Everything you typed is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
That is what is truly irrelevant.
I was not saying that the man came out and provided open endorsement for the principle, but was saying that his own words (as he wrote aspects of truth) when added together -- betrayed himself and Roman Catholic polemics as towards this issue, even when he himself may not have been aware of doing so -- as I made note of in my first note, this thread, when utilizing that source.
If you had bothered to read it the first time, I wouldn't need to here again repeat myself.
He (Ratzinger) also did show very much how your own self has long been in error as to your own usual polemics in regards to Luther.
Additionally, in Ratizinger's own accounting of things, as to Luther turning away from the way ECF's for reason of their use allegory, in later pages, Thomas is said to have done similar (and centuries earlier, or course) -- but doing so for differing reasons, yet still, in 'show the reason' instead of a 'show by allegory' type of thing, Luther can be seen to have been possibly influenced in that, by Thomas (even if Luther not fully aware of that influence) though as to what degree or extent even a most in-depth study and analysis would likely as not need make guesses towards.
“That is what is truly irrelevant.”
No, it’s your usage of it - since it doesn’t prove anything about sola scriptura - except for the fact that you’re wrong about it.
Ping
Ok -- you have convinced me -- that you do not understand the principle.
Or else it's like
“Ok — you have convinced me — that you do not understand the principle.”
Ok — you have convinced me — that you do not have any evidence for sola scriptura.
in this instance, C-150 is not an aircraft.
“in this instance, C-150 is not an aircraft.”
In any instance, it isn’t proof of sola scriptura in scripture.
Voris is always careful not to question the Pope’s motives. He’s already taken down his ChurchMilitant video on YouTube. I like him, but he’s a coward.
To read the entire interview with Cardinal Raymond Burke, click here!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLS3cOxfkJw
Actually, we all can and should "communicate" with the Holy Spirit, at least if we are Christians. And the Bible tells us what God commands. Anything the Pope says that is not in line with that authority would make the Pope wrong.
I’m betting Cardinal Burke is the one who told him to take it down.
“The Church” cannot be legitimately defined as the Catholic Church. The true “Body of Christ” can only be defined as those who have truly been “born-again,” that is, supernaturally transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ. Herein likes the danger of false teachings and heresies. Leaven corrupts the truth, therefore preventing men from entering the kingdom of God via the traditions and commandments of men rather than sola-scriptura.
Thanks for sharing your opinion, but it is nothing more than that, your opinion.
God’s Word is not an opinion, it’s inspired, infallible, and inerrant. God cannot lie my friend, Jesus is God, and Jesus said, “unless a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” I think that’s quite clear.
.
That does not match up with Yeshua’s words in John 3
[5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
[7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
[8] The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
How many people that you think are "born again" can move invisibly like the wind?
Yeshua plainly told Nicodemus that all who are "born of the spirit" can do so.
Yeshua's true assembly are those that will be born again, at the last trump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.