What's in Sola Scriptura? To Some, This is the Main Protestant Error — I Disagree

I agree it is an error, though. And therefore the seven Bible verses, I'll agree, probably, don't prove it.

But before getting into the meat of the discussion on the seven Bible verses, what is the definition of "Sola Scriptura"?

The Calvinists and Lutherans traditionally have a view far closer to Catholicism than the Baptists have. I'll highlight two sets of quotes, just under the video, before giving my comments on them.

By the way, I need not say "it is a condemned heresy" since in fact it isn't that, except in the Baptist sense. And that is the one Pius XI was thinking of in Mortalium Animos, which, again, does not add to how Trent Session IV preemptively condemned the Baptist view before the Baptists actually defined it as their "dogma". So, just in case someone pretends that "HGL holds to Sola Scriptura", no, I do not, I do hold that non-written traditions are necessary, Tota Scriptura is not the same as Sola Scriptura, and if he pretends "Sola Scriptura is a condemned heresy", no, it is not except in the Baptist sense, plus the unwritten traditions are necessary. So, if someone wants to conclude "HGL, while pretending to be Catholic, indulges in a condemned Protestant heresy" that is a false conclusion, just as its premisses are false.

7 Bible Verses That Don't Prove Sola Scriptura
Shameless Popery Podcast | 19 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9lTYg4gS6Y

Reformation Quotes and Mueller:

Baptist Quotes, including a condemned view on the Seven Books and on Book Part, and a condemned view of the sufficiency of Scripture, to be interpreted anyway one likes:

And now for my comments:

1:47 Obviously you cannot suppose Matthew Barrett and a Lutheran as having the same definition of Sola Scriptura.

Baptists and Lutherans are traditionally two different versions of Protestantism and have two different approaches to Sola Scriptura.

Ortlund, while a Baptist, arguably tries to get back to the Lutheran approach.

2:21 When Westminister states "or by good and necessary consequence" it implies there may be a necessity of some kind of magisterium.

To the individual parishioner of a Presbyterian Church, the authorities for saving doctrine are concretely two:

• the Bible
• his "teaching presbyter" (or "minister") interpreting the Bible (and behind him the board of "ruling presbyters" ~ roughly lay pastoral council, but nearly always run by rich men).

2:47 While the quote from Westminister is in conflict with a definition by Trent concerning "vel traditionibus non scriptis" ... the wording, if not the actual application, is compatible with what is portrayed as the Catholic spectrum by William of Occam.

According to the latter, a Christian must believe truths that are :

• school A stated in Scripture
• school B from 1) Scripture, 2) Apostolic Tradition, 3) Truthful Chronicles, 4) Necessary consequences of any of above, 5) Certified Revelations or Prophecy.

So, for instance, on the second view, I am obliged, since St. Bridget is canonised, and her prophecy was scrutinised at the canonisation process, to believe what she said about Our Lady's words on St. John or about the Antichrist. I mean St. Bridget of Vadstena, not the one of Kildare.

On BOTH views, magisterium only serves to tell us what the source or sources of doctrine contain.

2:52 I'm noting the Chemnitz quote.

• necessary to the Church
• necessary to the believerS, note the plural

Chemnitz is also not excluding the Magisterium.

3:26 Mueller is actually closer to the modern Baptist view than Chemnitz was.

• only source (common ground for all Protestantism, and for some Medieval and Patristic statements of Catholicism)
• only norm ... that's a totally different thing.

Whether you fall on the side "Scripture" or on the side "Scripture, unwritten tradition, trustworthy chronicles, conclusions, prophecy" ... both Catholicism and early Directly Reformation Based Protestantism give a second norm in the Magisterium, and Catholicism actually gives less interpretative freedom to the Magisterium of today by:

• quam tenuit atque tenet Ecclesia, cuius est iudicare (no Catholic can be bound to a Magisterial summersault)
• unanimam sententiam patrum (no Catholic is either bound to or even allowed an opinion that contradicts all of the Fathers).

Not all of the Fathers in their lifetime belonged to the Ecclesia Docens, for instance, St. Justin Martyr clearly didn't. He was a layman. St. Jerome didn't. He was a simple priest, not a bishop. But the fact that Justin Martyr and Jerome have the title "Saint" attached means that the Ecclesia Docens has approved them.

If C. S. Lewis had been allowed to preach in an Anglican Church or you in a Catholic parish, that wouldn't mean you had the normal authority of the preaching office, it would only have meant or mean that a specific sermon by the one or the other had been approved by someone holding such office (I'd say illegitimately in both cases, since "Pope Francis" is a close to Anglican heretic, more modernist than CSL was). Likewise, Justin Martyr and Jerome don't retroactively become Bishops, but the content is approved along with the persons by the Ecclesia docens.

Obviously, in a business as essay writers* (CSL, yourself, myself), while it can be judged by the Ecclesia docens, it doesn't need to be pre-approved by the Ecclesia docens, since it doesn't purport to be from the Ecclesia docens. The rule valid from Trent to Paul VI of preapproval being necessary is abolished according to your view, and inapplicable in Conclavism, at least so far, I asked Pope Michael I to approve the printing of some of my essays, he didn't have the time, and if there is no time for such pre-approvals, they cannot be held necessary either.

To be continued ...

* Not just Vatican II, as mentioned by Brian Holdsworth in Why I Started a YouTube Channel - And Should I Keep Going?, but Gilbert Keith Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc were both lay evangelists, more specifically apologists, and were both rewarded by Pope Pius XI by becoming Knights of St. Gregory. So far everything except the reference to Vatican II, I'm nearly half through the video, is highly correct. His complaint about a clergyman pretending lay evangelists are grifters if they take money for it, is totally valid. That clergyman was either influenced by an Evangelical or an Orthodox, of the types who pretend only clergy have the right to do apostolic labours. As I do not agree with Vatican II, but do agree with Pope Pius XI, I prefer referring to the latter.