tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38413397.post7008175213035307338..comments2023-12-19T15:10:02.866-08:00Comments on ex cathedra: Sola scripturaUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38413397.post-87325471870559110532010-12-30T13:33:42.963-08:002010-12-30T13:33:42.963-08:00Wow. Diabolical flattery. LOL. I was simply report...Wow. Diabolical flattery. LOL. I was simply reporting what I think most American Protestants would say.OreamnosAmericanushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15602268350813211243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38413397.post-75785209064272605402010-12-30T13:22:38.109-08:002010-12-30T13:22:38.109-08:00It's diabolical flattery to deem American Chri...It's diabolical flattery to deem American Christianity or Protestantism as "what is in the Bible." ... Richard J. Neuhaus, admittedly en route to Rome, proposed that "Sola Scriptura" is Protestant divines' [misleading] name for "Tradition." Luther may have meant something different, but that seems pretty accurate. (Gustav Aulen: the Protestant divines began trying to evade and garble Luther's doctrine from the beginning.)<br /><br />The advantage of a scripture which the temple priesthood must agree is sacred still seems advantageous, though, doesn't it? The priesthood can hope at most to construct what Luther calls a "wall of paper" around the sacred scripture. And surely the finest, densest and most labyrinthine wall of paper of this sort has been constructed by the Protestant scripture studies guild, who even pretend that they publish all their stuff in order that ordinary preachers and laymen can understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ. By contrast, how refreshingly candid is the Vatican's directive that to understand the Bible accurately is to understand it as supportive of or at least congruent with the doctrine of the Church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com