Biblical quotes from Jesus which counter sola scripture

[mcq72]

It seems impossible for some modern “bible christians” to fathom that the Church could exist without the NT

Actually it seems hard to fathom for some that an apostles writ would come to be the rule of law, as much as the apostles were when they were alive.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

Wannano:

The only ones that did were those who accepted the possibility of martyrdom. They then became “protestant.”

Corinthians 13
If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

I am not understanding why you are presenting this verse.

Maybe I misunderstood you? I thought you were implying that a willingness for “martyrdom” meant they were justified.

I do know that Martin Luther had some interaction with the Pope, though I dont know how sincere it was. It was initiated by threat. And dialogue was not exactly friendly.

I dont believe Martin had the patients to reform things without doing harm to the body. And on the other hand, abuses were a result of harm being dome to the body.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

If something has been confirmed at the highest authority (Bishops in communion with Rome), then we would be wrong to reject that.

how do the bishops confirm? Is that in council ? Can a pope speak/decree in ex cathedra apart from communion of bishops ?

Yes, they would have to assemble in a formal Council, I Believe. The Pope can formally address the Church, ex-Cathedra, alone.

 

[Wannano]

You misunderstood but maybe I was not real clear. There were many Catholics/priests back in the Reformation days who did share with their convictions with their superiors knowing it could ultimately end with martyrdom. They clung to the edict that we must be God rather than men.

 

[mcq72]

Yes, they would have to assemble in a formal Council, I Believe. The Pope can formally address the Church, ex-Cathedra, alone.

So highest authority can be bishops in communion with Rome and or the pope alone (alone in decree though perhaps in sentiment with church)

 

[nodelink]

US government began in 1776. US Constitution was not ratified until 1789.

Comparisons can be made but the New Testament is not a Constitution for the Church. If it were, still, Jesus Christ didn’t launch a system of independent house churches and denominations with discretion to create independent interpretations. There was one, holy, Catholic Church in the beginning. It was visible, unified, run by bishops and it advanced with the Sacraments as a means of Grace and with the blood of many martyrs.

The New Testament Canon wasn’t “ratified” until the fourth century.

 

[rcwitness]

Under lawful conditions, yes.

 

[rcwitness]

You misunderstood but maybe I was not real clear. There were many Catholics/priests back in the Reformation days who did share with their convictions with their superiors knowing it could ultimately end with martyrdom. They clung to the edict that we must be God rather than men.

When the Bishop gives an official response, we are to submit. Is there a response to Fr. Martin, from the Bishop, that was opposed to God?

I certainly agree that we are obey God before men. Were the reformers speaking as God?

I dont think these are simple questions. Rhetorical rather. Men from both sides of the reformation were guilty of errors.

For my understanding, the greatest error of the reformers, was to establish a Eucharist in division from the Bishop.

 

[mcq72]

US government began in 1776. US Constitution was not ratified until 1789.

Comparisons can be made but the New Testament is not a Constitution for the Church. If it were, still, Jesus Christ didn’t launch a system of independent house churches and denominations with discretion to create independent interpretations. There was one, holy, Catholic Church in the beginning. It was visible, unified, run by bishops and it advanced with the Sacraments as a means of Grace and with the blood of many martyrs.

The New Testament Canon wasn’t “ratified” until the fourth century.

Thank you very much, I stand corrected and indeed the USA began without our present constitution.

I would then say, for the first five years we had no constitution, until we ratified the Articles of Confederation , our first form of governance. Then as you say we formed a new government with our current constitution.

Perhaps some are right that the church followed a similar pattern, that all things today are not what they were at the beginning, that things evolved , including the office of the pope/presidency.

The New Testament Canon wasn’t “ratified” until the fourth century.

Can you ratify Logos Writ, the Word of God in print ? Was there a ratification process in the Sinai Desert of the famed two tablets ? Was there a ratification of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians ? Did the Ephesians wait 300 years before really trusting Paul’s letters as God breathed ?

As far as our comparison, I would say ratification was immediate to those who received writ, and took time for others to also claim it (not 300 years). The rest is more like amendments, until all books were ratified , by all. Writ certainly operated as authoritatively from day one, unlike our constitution, which really it could not be implemented one iota till all states ratified.

 

[mcq72]

Comparisons can be made but the New Testament is not a Constitution for the Church.

Agree that comparison is interesting but not identical. Yet whatever “constitution” the first church days operated under, (apostolic oral teaching/ guiding), Writ was to be a certain record of such operations/foundations, that is just as authoritative, the apostles’ God breathed imprint, not subject to amendment or interpretations beyond apostolic/Holy Ghost intent… the heart of what would later need to be coined “sola scriptura”.

What many seem to be saying is like saying our founders were really equally authoritative to what they ratified, that they were “representatives” of the colonies before the Articles of Confederation, before the US Constitution, and therefore are really as authoritative as the constitutions; they ratify, amend etc… and in reality much can change from that which was at the beginning. In the end, despite a constitution, things can change quite dramatically under such scenario…due to free will, and a tradition that can interpret ad infinitum, shadowing the heart condition thru it’s changes/interpretations down the ages, yet appearing to be “constitutional”.

 

[nodelink]

Denominations as interpretations of the Church of Jesus Christ are ineffective. They are human-created franchises or brands. Consumer brands like those for food or entertainment have changed over time and so have brands like Episcopal, Methodist and Lutheran. The Catholic Church is not a brand, it’s not a consumer choice. The Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ Himself and has continued across two millennium of generations with the same Head who rose from the dead.

 

[nodelink]

The US Supreme Court is the authoritative interpreter of the US Constitution. The Catholic Church provides authoritative interpretation of the Word of God.

 

[mcq72]

Denominations as interpretations of the Church of Jesus Christ are ineffective. They are human-created franchises or brands. Consumer brands like those for food or entertainment have changed over time and so have brands like Episcopal, Methodist and Lutheran. The Catholic Church is not a brand, it’s not a consumer choice. The Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ Himself and has continued across two millennium of generations with the same Head who rose from the dead.

May I say “Catholic” is indeed a brand, that is it is not from day one, but was really established as a brand when “other” brands, even false brands, came on the scene. So it was a reaction to “non universal” churches.

Another words, in a perfect world, the name/brand is not necessary. In the final state of the kingdom, no such names will be needed, no brands. We will not be known as “Catholic”, or “Orthodox”, or " Protestant" etc…but for now , all such names serve a purpose… and all will receive honor when due or correction when due on judgement day…I would also say those brands above will be “effective” in this regard…they will all contribute souls to the saints who go marching in, to the Bride of Christ (and not primarily because of church affiliation, but because they have been washed by the Blood of the Lamb). (Lumen Gentium)

Peace

 

[guanophore]

I do know that Martin Luther had some interaction with the Pope, though I dont know how sincere it was. It was initiated by threat. And dialogue was not exactly friendly.

I don’t think it could be called “interaction” necessarily. The Pope published Exsurge Domine in response to Luther. I agree, though, it was far from “friendly.”

dont believe Martin had the patients to reform things without doing harm to the body.

He certainly seemed to have anything but a saintly character.

There were many Catholics/priests back in the Reformation days who did share with their convictions with their superiors knowing it could ultimately end with martyrdom. They clung to the edict that we must be God rather than men.

Do you have any examples?

 

[Gummiholynn]

Don’t know to whom I am replying; first time commenting.

My thoughts about sola scriptura are that, before the New Testament books were written (which were canonized, that is deemed to be scripture, by THE CHURCH) what were the Apostles doing besides preaching the Gospel? They were celebrating MASS! “Do this in remembrance of me…”

I had no religious instruction and no faith until i was 15. Then I was an ignorant Protestant by default (but feeling not at home and that something was missing). I knew nothing else at the time and heard many falsehoods about the Catholic Church and it’s teachings. Mind you had I not heard the sermons in the Protestant church I started attending, I might not have felt that pull from God to faith and possibly wouldn’t have become a Christian in the first place. I want to say luckily (but it wasn’t luck; it was grace) I was so blessed to learn about the true Church ten years later (over the course of a year or so) through a Jesuit priest.

Particularly some Old Testament scripture that baffled me as a Protestant made sense for the first time when thinking about the Mass. It’s been helpful attending Bible study guided by a knowledgable Franciscan priest too. Catholic teaching has really seemed to unlock the scriptures and they make more sense to me now. Having been scripture focused as a Protestant was not a disadvantage after becoming Catholic (except for those amazing books in the O.T. that were missing because Luther threw them out. He didn’t like the practice of praying for the dead supported in those scriptures.) Protestants that go on about people who are dead are dead. It’s like they have no faith; “We are alive in Christ”; “He took away death’s sting”; etc.

I am a grateful convert and so happy to be HOME! (Will be 25 yrs as Catholic Nov. 2018.) Catholicism is so deep, even after all these years, I’ve only scraped the surface of the over 2000 years of accumulated knowledge (Holy Spirit inspired & Church approved!) I will never stop learning more about the Faith until my last breath!