Galatians 1:8 isn’t a problem at all. We don’t preach (or at least claim to preach) a separate gospel than what was originally taught. In regards to doctrinal development, we tend to view doctrine as acorn to tree.

@LukeHill The way I would view Sola Scriptura is that scripture is sufficient. If someone makes a theological claim, either that claim is in line with (and supportable by) scripture, and therefore does not require an extra-scriptural authority, or it isn't and therefore violates Galatians 1:8. I may need help understanding scripture, but ultimately there is no other authority.

@Matthew so the Canon of scripture is a theological claim. That raises the question, is your canon in line with scripture? Well that's a circular question. To know if something is in line with scripture, you need to be able to identify scripture. But to identify scripture, you need to make a theological claim, and to make a theological claim you have to check it against scripture... and this goes on ad infinitum.

@LukeHill Do you claim that nothing can be identified as Scripture? If you have a starting point (and I think a strong argument can be made for the synoptic gospels), additional scriptures are those that do not contradict existing scriptures and do not contain other (e.g. historical-factual) inaccuracies. It's not a completely arbitrary process, and there is good agreement among Christians among what does constitute scripture.

The flip side is that you are, effectively, arguing that scripture is being continually produced. But, again, you get into serious problems when your "new scripture" contradicts existing scripture. In that respect, however, I suppose I could ask, do you object to Sola Scripture, or to a closed canon?

@LukeHill For argument clarity sake (I'm trying not to take sides here), we should let Protestants to define what Sola Scriptura mean for them, and I think @curiousdannii's answer is spot on. He clearly says that "The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is about how to rank various sources of spiritual authority, but it does not concern how we arrived at the Biblical canon." On the other hand, yes, I do see uninformed Protestants saying illogical things.

Yes, the establishment of a canon IS a theological claim. Here, Protestants need to acknowledge the early church authority to make that claim. BUT there were competing authorities, the current Catholic church is just one of them. There are Oriential and Eastern Orthodox authority claim too, who have their own way of incorporating tradition into their doctrinal system. All 3 main branches (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox) believe in closed canon.

For me, the easiest way to understand Sola Scriptura is to understand it as a Protestant meta theological principle (in Protestant theologies called Prolegomena) that establishes how that group incorporates tradition, experience, and reason into their theological systems. Options among Protestants include Anglican's 3 legged stool and Wesleyan's quadrilaterial.

Thus what @Matthew is saying (Sola Scriptura means scripture is sufficient) is not illogical / circular. It is a meta-principle (the doctrine of Scripture) that limits authority for other doctrines to the 66 books alone.

Authority needs to start somewhere. I sometimes use the analogy of BIOS vs. Operating System. When you pushes the power button on your PC, some code you trust needs to load the OS: that's the BIOS (or UEFI in Mac or later PCs). So it makes sense that in corporate environment (especially banking), that access to BIOS is protected by the system administrator so that no rogue OS is loaded that can introduce a virus to the internal corporate network.

I see various denomination's doctrine of authority as various computer system's BIOS/UEFI which in turn is underwritten by Jesus and the 12 apostles (the ultimate authority). For Catholics, the BIOS is the Magisterium. For Protestants it's Sola Scriptura which presumes a certain canon "certified" by confessions like WCF who in turn appeal to apostolic authority as well. For Orthodox, their canon is certified by their tradition that goes back to the same 12 apostles.

A rogue false teacher in a church is like a rogue PC in a computer network. Ask any competent system administrator. Their #1 priority is to lock down any possible routes enabling a computer with an unauthorized OS to connect to the network to spread its "false teaching". Key terms include "OS infiltrated with rootkit", "rogue DNS server", "MAC address whitelist", "zero day patches", "umbrella DNS filter protecting careless user from malicious sites", etc.

A local church's main function is to protect the local church members from imbibing bad content just like an internal network (parents at home too) uses filtering software to prevent employee/child access to porn/violence/etc. Of course, some churches are more restrictive than others, just like some filtering software/policies are too.

@GratefulDisciple Sounds right 🙂.

@LukeHill this cbsnews.com/news/… is why I can't abide macro economics. The words themselves are sickening. If you can't help but do something stupid (like set a policy that causes 1.2 million people to lose their jobs) then you shouldn't do anything at all.

@GratefulDisciple good analogy, especially when you consider the crusty interface

@PeterTurner Austrian school economics would ask why we have a fed at all. Interest rates are a measurement of exchange just like any other currency, so we shouldn't give an entity the ability to arbitrarily raise or lower the interest rates as they please.

@Matthew I don't claim that nothing can be identified in scripture. I'm claiming that you cannot identify what scripture is from the basis of sola scriptura.

@GratefulDisciple The doctrine of scripture still needs to have some basis behind it, I for one cannot see any reason to accept one canon over the other beyond protestants personal preference

@LukeHill Again, I don't want to take sides here. And I try not to be like a Sophist lawyer who pride themselves to argue either side (for the money). 😀 So while arguing on behalf of the Protestants, I agree that the doctrine of Scripture needs to have a good basis. What better basis it is than Scripture itself? 😀 Is it circular? Let's see how GotQuestions explains; it's surprisingly approving of tradition as a source for teaching !

> The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. However, this is only true in the shallowest sense. The principle is strongly indicated by verses such as Acts 17:11, which commends the Bereans for testing doctrine—taught by an apostle, no less—to the written Word.

> Sola scriptura is all-but-explicitly indicated in 1 Corinthians 4:6, where Paul warns not to “go beyond what is written.” Jesus Himself criticized those who allowed traditions to override the explicit commands of God in Mark 7:6–9.

> Whether sola scriptura is overtly mentioned in the Bible or not, Catholicism fails to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message.

@LukeHill Self-consistency and historical accuracy. If two writings teach contradicting theology, one (or both) aren't scripture. If a writing has historical errors, it isn't scripture.

@GratefulDisciple I don't think that's the primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura, that's the primary "gotcha-there point". The primary Catholic argument is sola scriptura is dumb.

> Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

Right, and that's what I was trying to say elsewhere. It's not that anything outside of the Bible is wrong, it's that anything which contradicts the Bible is wrong. Since Protestants believe many Catholic dogmas contradict the Bible...

(Also, that anything above and beyond what is in the Bible can't be necessary for Salvation.)

Please see the rest of the article too. It's quite a good write-up on how Protestants today are more open to non-Scriptural sources while yet maintain extreme conservatism when it comes to using non-written sources to justify a doctrine. Now some Protestants may not be too prejudicial against Purgatory, for example, but still wary to adopt it as doctrine.

To summarize (in my own way as a lawyer for the Protestant side): The NT pattern of adjudicating new teaching (Berean evaluating Paul's rendition of Jesus's teaching) and Jesus himself who criticized the oral tradition of the Pharisees and Paul's own elevation for "the written" should at least serve as a guideline for preferring "the written" for selecting the basis for NT teaching as well, i.e. written records of Jesus and the apostles.

The same criteria was used by the early church fathers when limiting the canon. Note how all 3 major traditions have the same NT; they only vary as to the Old Testament. Thus, the early church agree to limit post-twelve-apostle canon to not include the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas for example, why not extend the same principle to the NT oral tradition?

Another note: Protestants have no issue in appealing to tradition for clarification when some NT teaching is ambiguous, hence their accepting the Nicene and Apostle's creeds on the same principle: they don't contradict nor add to the 27 books. In fact, this adds freedom to reform even St. Augustine's teachings if later research on Second Temple Judaism showed his teachings were too conditioned by Platonism, for example.

@LukeHill About your saying "cannot see any reason to accept one canon over the other beyond Protestant personal preference". Come on. We need to look at the history of the early church as well as the early history of Reformation as well. @curiousdannii's answer provides a context for the commonly cited Luther's aversion to James. It's clear enough that "personal preference" (Montanus in 2nd, or Luther in 16th) didn't win in the end.

@PeterTurner "The primary Catholic argument is sola scriptura is dumb." Hehehe, I take it that you said it in jest. I'm not going to argue for the Catholic side today, but if I were, I have a much better argument than "dumb", supported by Vatican II council and post-conciliar documents as well. It really has to do with who we can trust for the computer firmware.

@LukeHill To add to my above note: WCF and Protestant denominational statement of faith serves as a restoration of the communal decision that the early church once provided. Protestant view is that the early church were once Protestant too, but later generations (post Chalcedon, roughly) added too much practice that are not Biblically based.

Instead of the Catholic's characterization of today's doctrines as the full development of the acorn (I admit Scott Hahn's explanation for the papacy as being typified by the Kingdom of David is quite persuasive), Protestant's view of later development is that of accretion beyond "mere Christianity".

To go back to my previous analogy: what should we individual Christians choose? You may not agree to my analogy, but I see myself as a consumer purchasing a laptop/PC. I choose the firmware (Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox). I choose the OS (the theology/church) that I authorize the firmware to load. But what God measures is what I DO with the PC (the application). Do I use it to watch porn, or do I use it as an instrument for love for neighbor and Christ?

I prefer using certified firmware and OS. There are non-orthodox firmware and OS out there. Or in smartphone world, private app store. That's dangerous since the code is not subject to testing. Better stick with those that millions of people use, that is continually being patched. Better stay with Apple/Google/Amazon app stores that have security procedures to prevent rogue apps intended to steal.

Of course, hard-core power user (usually hard-core programmers) don't trust big corporations like Microsoft or Apple or Google. They want open source OS that they compile themselves to binary and install them. They like really minimal bare-bones OS. That's how Linux got started. They can use their PC to worship Christ too and be really productive, but it's somewhat risky and cumbersome to have to create and certify your own doctrines with the help of only the Holy Spirit.

@GratefulDisciple just using reductio ad moranis "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb.". Our pastor is supposed to be schooling us on Dei Verbum soon so maybe I'll have a better argument soon. My main problem is that whenever I think I understand what sola scriptura is, I find that it's not what I think it is; which makes me presume it's a rather wobbly sort of thing

@PeterTurner Looking forward to hear it (his teaching on Dei Verbum). About Sola Scriptura, what do you think of @curiousdannii's answer? Yes, a lot of Protestants themselves distort Sola Scriptura and make it Solo/Nuda Scriptura without realizing it. You are right to be confused. But curiousdannii's answer, the Got Questions article, and the wikipedia entry represent the "official" definition that I see represented in the academia. I certify it (for what my credential is worth) :-).

Some day I need to update my answer to your question now that I have done some more studies since then.

"where did the idea come from that everyone can interpret the bible for themselves?" That sounds very much like a heretical modernist teaching. That said, I would argue that one is ultimately individually accountable for their own right understanding of theology (which is to say anyone can err and we shouldn't take anything but scripture itself as an ultimate authority), but the notion that one can understand scripture without help is equally wrong.

(Disclaimer: I may be misusing "modernist". What I mean is that it goes along with other errors of today's culture, which may or may not strictly fall under the "modernism" umbrella.)

(Certainly it's in line with the ideas of "personal truth".)

@Matthew That sentence from @PeterTurner's question is understandable. I hear that a lot from Protestant circle too. It's to represent the perspicuity of Scripture, an aspect of sola scriptura which Protestants say as a criticism of the pre-Reformation era church where reading the Bible on their own was discouraged as could lead to heresies.

@GratefulDisciple Oh, I am NOT intending to say it's wrong, in the sense that it doesn't happen. It's wrong in the sense that it's arguably heretical; Peter has that much right!

...but the other extreme is equally problematic.

What I would claim is correct is that we should listen respectfully to tradition, because we are fallible humans that can't hope to arrive at the right answers all on our own, but also that we should test traditions against scripture, because traditions come from fallible humans.

@Matthew I think we're on the same page there. Although personally (taking my Protestant lawyer hat off) I tend to be more generous to "great church compatible" doctrines, so more open to the possibility that the doctrine of purgatory and intercession of saints to be okay.

TTYL. Gotta go.

God bless!

@GratefulDisciple I am of the opinion that if such things were important, they would be mentioned in Scripture. Since they aren't, I find it hard to accept that they are beneficial beliefs, and since they aren't beneficial, I find it hard to accept that they aren't harmful; as a distraction, if nothing else.

@PeterTurner The words are especially sickening given it was the Fed and federal government that got us in this mess in the first place

@Matthew So how do you determine which one is scripture and which one should be left out? Also, you are stating the obvious when you say it shouldn't 't have historical errors. Catholics believe in inherency.

@LukeHill Right. My understanding (bearing in mind this is from many, many years back) is that some writings that were considered for canonization have known errors (e.g. reporting things that didn't happen, or wrong times, places, etc.), and so were left out. I don't recall examples.

blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_395.cfm has some comments on teachings in the Apocrypha that (allegedly) contradict the Protestant canon.

...as well as reasons why the accepted canon is scriptural.

Ah. See #21 on that page for "Demonstrable Historical Errors".

How do Catholics determine which non-dogmas they should believe in? Does an average Catholic layperson have any right to tell another Catholic layperson that they shouldn't believe in a non-dogma "pious tradition"? For example, the idea that Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit? Can one Catholic tell another that they think that idea is not in line with the scriptures, theologically problematic, and even disgusting?

When I've heard "pious traditions" discussed on this site, it seems much more of an "everyone interpreting for themselves" than Protestantism has ever permitted. Want to believe in an unauthorised Marian apparition? You can, and no one can tell you not to.

Or what's the deal with Catherine Emmerich? Even if she is canonised, that will likely be on the basis of her personal piety, not her visions. Is there a place for Catholics to appeal to other Catholics to reject her visions? If so, what is the process of such an appeal?

Maybe Catholicism does have principles by which these non-authoritative traditions can be discussed, debated, and judged by Catholic laity, but if so I've never heard them discussed. From my perspective Catholicism is orders of magnitude more of a free-for-all than Protestantism. Sola Scriptura understood correctly keeps us in line and keeps us united.

This isn't directly connected to anything that people have been discussing, but Catholics often accuse Protestants of lacking unity. I think they need to recognise that within Catholicism there is a comparable amount of diversity, if you consider the various liturgical rites, rules for ordination (single vs married, etc), varying traditions and practices.

The real difference is not diversities such as these, but whether a single formal united church authority is necessary for the unity of Christ's single universal church to be realised. Protestants say it isn't, and point to, for example, the parachurch mission agencies as demonstrating that the various denominations truly are united in Christ and the Gospel.

@PeterTurner I'm sorry, but we've explained Sola Scriptura to you numerous times over the years, so I really don't understand how you could be so unsure about it still. It's not wobbly at all. WCF 1.10 explains it clearly:

> The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

@curiousdannii I think that charge is patently unfair. They have the Catechism, which is clear enough for lay Catholics who bother to study it. They also have a process by which some saints are canonized, etc. and how the apparitions need to be consistent with church teachings. As far as I know, no private revelations need to be believed, and how is it different than Protestant continuationists who are supposed to test prophecies with Scripture?

I actually find comfort from the way they handle the charismatic "Life in the Spirit" seminar, whose content is very much Jesus & Holy Spirit centered. In this way they deal with manifestations of spiritual gifts safely (at diocesan level) instead of leaving them to private individuals and individual pastors at single churches.

Then Catholics have a way to order in a hierarchy from most authoritative to least authoritative using their system of theological notes. In that way, it's not at all "free for all" and disunified.

In my understanding the counterpart of Sola Scriptura is the Magisterium. Even for a non-Catholic like me, I am never confused as to the right teaching, if I bother to research it without going to seminaries. Mostly CCC and Canon law.

@GratefulDisciple But lots of things are outside the catechism. Like, AFAIK, Mary being the spouse of the HS.

@GratefulDisciple My concern isn't about what "needs" to be believed, it's about how a church can functionally operate when people can believe extra things. Protestants don't actually "test the spirits" very well... I suspect that charismatic churches which embrace new revelations would have lots of issues too.

@GratefulDisciple So for the things which are "safe", "very common", or "less certain", what can one laity do to dissuade another? Or do they have no right to do that?

@curiousdannii Let's be charitable and see how prevalent it is among Catholics in parishes, but more importantly, what does the official document says? Wasn't there a C.SE answer on it already that it's not a dogma? Didn't Pope Francis closed the door to over-enthusiastic Catholic Marians who wanted the church to bless Mary as co-redemptrix?

@GratefulDisciple Sola scriptura is a principle that can be applied to every issue, every idea, every tradition, and it's a principle that can be applied by every Christian. The magisterium has not weighed in on every issue. That's a huge difference.

@GratefulDisciple Yes I already asked about it not being dogma. But does that mean that a Catholic who rejects it can never speak up about it to their fellow Catholics who accept it as a "pious tradition" (I don't know which level of "theological note" it would be at)

@curiousdannii "What can one laity to do to dissuade another?" How about reporting them to the bishop and have them excommunicated? How about pointing out CCC and refuse to take part in believing it? This is not Iran, so live and let live, but if that false-teacher laity is a deacon / priest, the bishop can discipline them. Isn't that enough? Isn't that how St. Paul teach the Corinthian church to do?

When someone in a Catholic youth group starts getting very excited about an non-validated Catholic mystic's writings, I assume the Catholic youth group leaders could warn them that it's not authoritative. But can they do more than that? They can't appeal to the Magisterium or the catechism. Unless the mystic directly contradicts the scriptures, what can they do?

@GratefulDisciple What grounds would there be for getting them excommunicated?! We're not talking about heresies here.

@curiousdannii A simple perusal of that article shows that a typical apparition or a writing by pious Catholic to be at level 11 (lowest) at the most, because it's not considered teaching. By the way, Hans Kung was censured publicly from being a Catholic teacher.

@GratefulDisciple Also, aren't SSPX almost schismatics? Do conventional Catholics categorise things in the same way?

@curiousdannii I would think an average knowledgeable Catholic would know to freely ignore teachings that are not positively decided by the Magisterium. Most Catholics instead seem to complain that the Magisterium restrict them too much (like contraception, for example).

Or I might be mixing them up with another group.

@GratefulDisciple Exactly my point - a free for all, outside the small boundaries of the magisterium.

Sola scriptura isn't just a principle for what can be believed, but what should be believed. It drives all Protestant theology. There's no issue that we just go "it's up to you!" There are exceedingly unimportant things, but no theology is outside the remit of sola scriptura.

@GratefulDisciple It wouldn't surprise me if most Catholics think the magisterium says far too much and most Protestants think it says far too little! 😂

@curiousdannii I'm really quite puzzled with your argument here. Do we have a real case? What mystic's writings are we dealing with? Are Catholic youths really into mysticism nowadays? Don't they tend to read the books by authorized mystics like Teresa of Avila, etc? How are they different than Protestants who are influenced by prosperity gospel peddlers (like Joel Osteen) and books? If they are at all willing to be taught, I'm sure their parish priest or RC lay leader would advise them.

@GratefulDisciple Totally real case. This site is full of people like that. Mary being the HS's spouse is a real example. People referencing people like Catherine Emmerich is a real example. And the result seems to be that other catholics say "Well I don't agree, but there's no grounds to oppose it"

@curiousdannii Again, I don't follow your argument here. We should consider a real and probably case, not a hypothetical / imaginary case. The sense I got from the Catholics in this forum and at large is more that Catholics are too worldly, not going to church, and not interested in learning their faith in the first place. Rather than they are overenthusiastic about borderline hereticals that the Magisterium leaves open.

And I want to know what specifically the youth leaders can say. Can a parish priest tell their congregation not to believe that Mary is the HS's spouse?, or would that get them censured?

@GratefulDisciple How about jong ricafort? My impression is that a lot of Catholics here disagree with what he writes, but a silent downvote is about the only option they have.

@curiousdannii It looks like they are. But my sense is that they are really minority. I have been going to at least 6 different parishes, and all of them are doing the New mass, and half of them I think could have been done more reverently.

How is the number of people interested in deeper theological matters relevant to the process of doing theology together??? Sure, not many Catholics are enthusiastic about unauthorised mystics, but the numbers would be comparable to the number of Protestants interested in, for example, the New Perspective on Paul.

@curiousdannii I would agree with you much more if you can show me that jong ricafort type is spreading like Covid, or that [possibly] sedevacantist and going-back-to-rigid-scholastic-thomism types like Geremia is the majority. I sense the opposite, that VC II Catholicism IS triumphant both in popular literature and in the worship.

@GratefulDisciple Again, the prevalence is totally irrelevant to my questions. I'm asking how we practice theology, not who's winning.

@curiousdannii To me, sociological prevalence AND official trend (through Magisterial publication) over the past 50 years AND laments of "I wish the church is more traditional" Catholics like PeterTurner and SupportiveDante AND popular teacher like Bishop Robert Barron (millions of followers) COUPLED WITH my personal statistical sampling is enough to assure me that VCII is winning and the way VCII practice theology and interpreting the Bible is getting them closer to Protestantism.

And as a Protestant I'd say that there are numerous examples where the fringe has become accepted and then dominant. The assumption of Mary for example. Did it become dogma through a history of it not being opposable because the scriptures say so little that's even tangentially relevant, and there being no other principle that allows Catholics to dissuade others from believing such a tradition?

One Catholic side winning over another through anything other than a strict process where a theological question is debated according to sources of revelation is exactly the problem I'm talking about.

@curiousdannii I beg to differ here. New Perspective on Paul seems to be majority among academia and I am willing to bet with you that in the next 30 years (at the latest) it will go mainstream. That trendline is clear while the trendline of unauthorised mystics will remain marginal.

@GratefulDisciple I meant amongst laity, not academics.

@curiousdannii Yes, in 30 years it will be mainstream among laity starting with the pastors, then the board of elders, and the Sunday school teachers. And the means of propagation would be popular level books and commentaries that incorporate NPP (without the label).

For now, something like Mary being the spouse of the HS is a "pious tradition", and if anyone disagrees, then they seem to keep quiet about it. I'm sure within Catholic academia there are debates over it, but they don't seem to reach public awareness. But it's entirely plausible that in 50 years a pope declares it dogma. It's never been contentious because how would a Catholic contend about a pious tradition? And so there's nothing to stop it being declared dogma in the future.

@GratefulDisciple Maybe. I'm not convinced by the NPP, I think it says too much on too little evidence. It raises good questions, but its answers are definitely far from accepted. It's now in the frame that every Pauline Biblical scholar uses to discuss Paul's writings, but I think you'd find that lots of Pauline scholars don't truly endorse it to that extent.

@curiousdannii I'm much more afraid of Mary being co-redemptrix. We will need to monitor the "chatter" among Catholic academia and pious Catholic groups (about spouse of the Holy Spirit) first to gauge the trend line. Your statement that "it's entirely plausible that in 50 years a pope declares it dogma" needs to be substantiated that way. Currently it sounds more like a conspiracy theory, very much different than the "chatter" about NPP.

@GratefulDisciple It's not a conspiracy theory. I truly have no idea how likely it is. But it's possible, right? Why wouldn't it be possible.

This is partly why I plan to keep visiting local Catholic parishes here. To have a real feel on the ground.

Co-redemptrix is outright heresy. I truly hope the Catholic Church never supports it. It needs to stop any flirting with it.

@curiousdannii I agree that it IS heresy, but I'm comfortable (so far) with the current Pope and the last few discouraging that kind of talk. But spouse of the Holy Spirit remains a honorific at the most, and in my sense the support for it at the official level is non-existent.

@GratefulDisciple But to come back to my original question: what can be done by those who reject it? Can a parish priest, when preaching on Matthew 1, tell his congregation that although some think the Mary is the spouse of the HS, that he thinks it is a dangerous and wrong idea, and that they absolutely must not think of the Spirit in any way as having a fatherly relationship with Jesus?

@curiousdannii I'm very much dismayed by hard core Trump supporters (I know some) talking about US election machines being compromised. How does one disprove it? It's by lawsuits, data, investigative reporting, etc. BUT yet many people refuse to believe how it is a conspiracy theory. Like the US government, the Catholic church is a lot more open than LDS in its internal workings. So there's a way to measure probability and you'll just have to be more willing to consider evidence.

@GratefulDisciple That's totally not the kind of thing I was saying. All I was saying is that popes can and will define new dogmas in the future. And I think that the lack of something like sola scriptura means that opposition to proto-dogmas will be underrecognised.

@curiousdannii To apply my last message to this issue, again I appeal to statistical evidence. Do you have that evidence? Can't we simply find the day of the liturgical year where Matt 1 is the Sunday reading and get a sampling of the homilies across the world? How about Google Ngram search?

@curiousdannii Well the last part is easy as Aquinas refutes it. So it's more whether he can tell his congregation that he thinks a pious tradition is dangerous and they should reject it.

@GratefulDisciple I truly don't understand why you think we need evidence on this. I don't care what priests have said. I'm asking what they can say, or whether doing something would get them disciplined.

@curiousdannii I would think for a parish priest to even GIVE a space to address it, there has to be a smoke. I have yet to see that smoke. Otherwise we remain in unrealistic hypotheticals. We don't want non-Protestants to engage this kind of speculation about us, do we?

It doesn't matter what the ratio of spouse proponents are to opponents. I'm asking what's allowed to be said, and more generally what the processes and principles are for Catholic laity to discuss, debate, and persuade each other on theological questions.

@GratefulDisciple No, I don't think you're being reasonable here. All that's needed is for one or two congregation members to have mentioned it to their priest. It's an entirely reasonable hypothetical.