Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Pope Benedict XVI Held to Scripture Alone!

I want to have some fun with this post. It amazes me how the Reformed Protestants twist and selectively quote the Church Fathers in their attempts to justify Sola Scriptura. Just for the fun of it I thought I would try an experiment. I will quote from Pope Benedict XVI and use the methods that modern Protestants use with the Church Fathers, to prove Pope Benedict XVI believes in Scripture Alone. Just pretend Pope Benedict XVI lived in the year 375 and these are his writings. You will be quite amused at what we can do with selective quotes! Just ignore everything else he wrote and look for everything you can that makes it appear as if he believed in Scripture alone as the sole authority. This is a perfect example of what the "Reformed" apologist does.

I can just imagine the Turretin Fan of the year 3020 (Calling himself James White Fan) using these quotes to defend Protestantism in the distant future. Sitting in his basement with his super computer cutting and pasting quotes at a feverish pace! I mean, who can argue? The Pope is caught red-handed; he wrote “the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.” That is good enough for me. How about these other quotes?

"You have gathered once again to study a very important topic: Inspiration and Truth of the Bible. This subject not only concerns theology, but the Church herself, because the life and mission of the Church are necessarily based on the Word of God, which is the soul of theology and at the same time the inspiration of all Christian life.

"Therefore since all that the inspired authors or hagiographers state is to be considered as said by the Holy Spirit, the invisible and transcendent Author, it must consequently be acknowledged that “the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures”
Pope Benedict XVI addressing the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on April 23, 2009

"When exegesis—critical analysis or interpretation—does not appeal to theology or when Scripture is not the soul of theology or theology is not rooted in the Scriptures, then there is a problem with the way sacred writings are being interpreted," Pope Benedict XVI Oct. 14 2008.

"The Church must be constantly renewed and rejuvenated and the Word of God, which never ages and is never depleted, is a privileged means to achieve this goal. Indeed, it is the Word of God, through the Holy Spirit, which always guides us to the whole truth. (cf. John 16:13)" Pope Benedict XVI — On Reading Sacred Scripture Epiphany 2006

There are many more I could quote. But as we can see, this business of going back and pulling a paragraph or sentence from a Church Father writing on the importance of Scripture, and then using that to prove Scripture Alone amounts to nothing more than selective quoting. Or should we now declare that the Pope is really a Scripture Alone heretic? There you have it; the Pope said..."Indeed, it is the Word of God, through the Holy Spirit, which always guides us to the whole truth." That proves it!


Rhology said...

"Indeed, it is the Word of God, through the Holy Spirit, which always guides us to the whole truth...except it's not perspicuous, so never mind I said that."

Seems to me, if someone is so apt to slip up like this in their speeches with respect to important doctrines like Sola Scrip vs non-Sola Scrip, one would be well-served to, well, stop doing speeches. If a Pope or a CF can't communicate a consistent msg, so much the worse for the Roman rule of faith anyway.


Anonymous said...

haha point taken champ... however you'd never catch benni (is that bad?) saying don't believe what I say unless you find it in the scrip?
or maybe you would?

also you're not being totally honest with mine or turretain's application of cyril's quote, i myself have been very careful to say this does not establish sola scriptura but it does severe damage to conceptions of the absolute authority of the roman pontif.

hahah this guy....

Brian Edward miles said...


You guys just can't help yourselves can you? You are so accustomed to taking things out context to proof-text your reformed positions that you can't even leave this small qoute from the Holy Father's alone.

In context, we see that Pope Benedict XVI is speaking about the Church, and how she is rejuvenated by Sacred Scripture. Thus, when he explains how it is "The Word of God, through the Holy Spirit, which guides to the whole truth" he is clearly not talking about the isolated individual for whom Scripture is not always and everywhere perspicous. Instead, he is speaking of the universal Church to whom the discernment and proclamation of the truth was entrusted.

Brian Edward Miles said...

"Guides us" typo

Matthew Bellisario said...

This is the best you can come up with Rhology? Challenging the Pope's competence in his speeches? The Pope has degrees in Philosophy and theology from the University of Munich, he taught at several Universities, he speaks like 10 languages, yet Rhology has the audacity to now become his critic. What a joke. I cant stand any more. Rome is safe for another day!

Anonymous said...

interesting matthew how when I was talking about matatics and hahn were so educated and you said that had nothing to do with anything. now you're talking about the popes' pedigree. I think maybe rho didn't have the full context of our cyril discussion so I don't think he got the humor of your post.
I also think you should do a series on sedevacantism and the conflict between pre/vat/2 catholics and post/vat/2 catholics. i'd really like to see an even-handed treatment of these issues.

Rhology said...

The funny thing is how here BEM takes me to task for allegedly taking the Pope out of context, yet he and his refuse to take James 2 in its context and Ephesians 2 in its context in discussions about soteriology. I find RCs generally call for 'context' when convenient, and jettison the concept when not.

At any rate, I'd like to know, if Scripture is not perspicuous:
1) Who the "us" is in "the Word of God...which guides us to the whole truth". And how you know that.
2) How something that is unclear could indeed guide someone into the whole truth (unless the "us" is the Magisterium, and not the entire Church).
3) Why you think the Pope didn't express his actual position in this speech, that Scr is not perspicuous, and instead used misleading terminology. You two guys ain't the whole world, you know. Some people are accustomed to taking people's words to mean what they mean.


Alex said...

Rhology, that only works when you know what the meaning means. Otherwise you are simply imposing your particular worldview into it.

John said...

Either the church fathers (and the pope apparently) are incapable of stringing a couple of sentences together without being inconsistent. (What Rhology and James White and others would have us believe). So we can pick and choose the bits from them we like, and when there are bits we don't like, it's "oh well, they were inconsistent, not my fault".


Rhology and James White and others don't understand the Church Fathers.

I know what I believe.

Carl Grillo said...

Monday, June 18, 2012

Janet Smith denies Virginity in Birth

Janet Smith responds to Alice von Hildebrand’s critique of Christopher West
Lima, Peru, Oct 22, 2010 / 01:04 am (CNA)

Smith also discussed the debate surrounding whether or not dwelling on the details of Christ’s birth displays an inordinate curiosity.

“Von Hildebrand’s response to West’s likening the birth of his son to the birth of Jesus is curious. She believes it is incorrect to think that Mary may have expelled a bloody placenta. Pregnant wombs have placentas,” Smith wrote. “Did not Mary’s? Would it be wrong to think it might have been bloody? Christ’s body was covered with blood when he died, was it not? Scripture itself makes reference to Mary’s womb and breasts; is the placenta really so objectionable that it could not be mentioned?"

The "virginitas in partu" (virginity in giving birth) is not just a "pious tradition"...it is a Catholic Dogma "de fide divina et catholica" - which must be believed by "Divine and Catholic faith," infallibly proposed by the ordinary and universal Magisterium; whose denial on the part of Janet Smith is therefore - formally heretical and presumably malicious: she cannot be excused on account of ignorance. The specific contents of this Catholic dogma are as follows: non-rupture of the physical virginal integrity (I omit the biological term "ex reverentiam"); the absence of labor pains; AND...the "sine sordibus" - the absence of the biological accidents of natural birth: placenta, umbilical cord, etc. Janet Smith's blasphemous expression, "...pregnant wombs (sic-!) have placentas," just indicates her degree of hatred for Our Lord Jesus Christ and his Most Holy and Immaculate Mother...[cf., Pius XII, in Mystici Corporis: "...it was a miraculous birth." Vatican II: "..whose birth not only did not diminish his Mother's virginal integrity, but augmented it;" repeated by John Paul II in his Catechetical Marian discourses...]