Catholics believe in Sola Scriptura

[Contarini]

Sorry , I’m not good with Latin. What does that translate as?

“Verbum” means “Word” and “Domini” is the genitive singular of the word for “Lord.”

So I think it’s fair to say that the best translation of this would be “the Word of the Lord”!

I can’t see anything wrong with “this is,” but if it has disappeared that may be part of a move back toward a more literal rendition of the Latin. I think think of many better places to start, but still. . . .

Edwin

 

[mrs_abbott]

“Verbum” means “Word” and “Domini” is the genitive singular of the word for “Lord.”

So I think it’s fair to say that the best translation of this would be “the Word of the Lord”!

I can’t see anything wrong with “this is,” but if it has disappeared that may be part of a move back toward a more literal rendition of the Latin. I think think of many better places to start, but still. . . .

Edwin

Agreed!

 

[Mike_Brick]

This is the way my denomination (Evangelical Presbyterian) defines its view towards the Bible, which failrly could be described as Sola Scriptura:
epc.org/about-epc/beliefs/essentials.html

Aside from the number of books, what gives Catholics trouble with this? I think the “supreme and final” bit, but if Scripture does not have it, then Tradtion swallows Scripture, and Scripture does not have any authority on its own, but is only a part of Tradition.

Scripture is not Tradition. But I am told on this thread that it is.
Still puzzled.

Truthstalker: Thanks for sharing this with us. I wonder how widely accepted this definition is followed through the different branches of Presbyterianism?

Also I’m pleased to see one of the last lines which stated, “The Bible, uniquely and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, is the supreme and final authority on all matters on which it speaks”, (my emphasis added). That may leave some room for our Sacred Tradition, and I’m glad to know your particular church or even denomination might be able to agree that, (in keeping with John’s last verse in his gospel), there might be a few doctrines not clearly “spoken” about in sacred scripture. Some protestant pastors believe if it’s not clearly found in sacred scripture it must be a false teaching no matter what. It’s good to see your’s is not one of those.

Thanks for sharing that, we are not as far apart as some might think!

Peace

 

[rtconstant]

How can you say this as a Catholic, when your own Church refers to Scripture as the Word of God all the time? Isn’t that what your lectors say after the Scripture readings? Isn’t the document of Vatican II dealing with Scripture called “Dei Verbum”?

Correction, it is “This is the word of the Lord”. Perhaps, this will reinstate my Catholic[ness]

Anyway, it’s all in the details.

 

[cazayoux]

You might just as well say that “Co-Redemptrix” obviously means that Mary is equal with Christ as a redeemer. To say that it means anything else is ludicrous.

In fact what is ludicrous is to think that any important theological idea can be adequately expressed in a simple slogan.

Edwin

Agreed.
So why do some say they believe in “Sola Scriptura”, when I can see that that phrase is more limiting than the *actual *belief that includes more than scripture alone?

 

[cazayoux]

Catholics believe they are saved by “grace alone”? Does this mean absolutely nothing else is needed? Not even means for communicating this grace(e.g. baptism) or cooperating grace(e.g. good works)?

You might have to help me out.
What makes you think that Catholics believe they are saved by “grace alone”?
References please.
Regardless, I don’t think a Catholic would refer to themself as “Sola Grace”. (sorry, the latin word for grace escapes me at the moment)
At the very least we would have to expand that past-tense to ‘has been saved’, ‘is being saved’, and ‘prays to be saved’.
We don’t believe our salvation is a one-time, once and for all event and it is something we participate in through our God-given free will.
We believe it is something we work on (with Jesus) our entire lives, until the moment we die.

The main question is … Does Sola Scriptura mean 'Scripture Alone"?

I would assume that you belong to a congregation with a minister or preacher and that you listen to that person teach about what is in the bible.
You don’t just read the bible for yourself, but you have a guide or teacher of some sort in the form of another person.

I pray to the Holy Spirit before reading scripture.
I give thanks for His word, and ask for guidance and understanding in my reading.
I do not think, though, that I will gain a *full *understanding of all truth on my own.
The Holy Spirit was left to Jesus’ church, a teaching church, to guide men to all truth.

Do you believe that when you read scripture, even with the Holy Spirit, that you will come to understand all truth?
Could you believe that more than the bible is necessary, like His Church, for instance?

michel

 

[Nicene]

The truth is that the bible isn’t the final authority, much as people like to say that. Their interpretation is the final authority.

It all boils down to interpretation.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[cazayoux]

The truth is that the bible isn’t the final authority, much as people like to say that. Their interpretation is the final authority.

It all boils down to interpretation.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

I’m with you.
‘Their interpretation’ isn’t good enough.
‘They’ aren’t the pillar and foundation of the truth, His church is.
The bible is specific about the dangers of personal interpretation.

michel

 

[RNRobert]

Jesus did not come down from heaven and hand Peter a bunch of scrolls and say…“Here you go…This is what I wanted to teach you.” …and then vaporized back into the clouds. He came, lived among the disciples, taught by His example and by parable. The Word was spoken and received through the ears of the Apostles.

The apostles, for decades kept Christianity alive only through the faithful retelling of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. Only after much time did they put down in writing what later became understood as the Gospels. (Sacred Tradition)

Christianity survived hundreds of years with only Sacred Tradition. No canon of the Bible existed. The Bible then only came to exist because the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church told us what is to be contained in it.

Sacred Tradition, without dispute, came first.

So this thread should be turned on its ear…the Bible is “biblical” only because it agrees and is in line with what the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church teaches…not the other way around.

I agree. Protestants complain that when we debate Sola Scriptura, we bring up the canon. However, the two are inseparable. Christianity is not a “religion of the book” like Islam, whose founder, Mohammed, wrote the Koran and basically told people to “read and heed.” Christianity’s founder, Jesus Christ, taught exclusively by word of mouth, as did his followers for years before setting anything to paper. Even after the apostles died, there was no set canon, and during this time, the church taught and saved souls primarily by word of mouth.
As Randy Carson has pointed out in other threads, there is no evidence of a paradigm shift of teaching authority passing from the Apostles to a book.

 

[kaycee]

Well, I would have issue with the usage of “Word of God” that usage borders on blasphemy as it is attributing an authority reserved for Jesus Christ to the Bible. Don’t worry I know that wasn’t the intention I’m just pointing out where I disagree.

“Complete” may be a bit strong as well as the Bible itself says that it isn’t complete in terms what Christ did.

As you pointed out “supreme and final authority” sends off warning bells.

I find that hearing the teaching of Jesus Paul, Peter, James, Mark, Luke, Matthew in recorded scripture stops the alarm bells from going off.

 

[Contarini]

Agreed.
So why do some say they believe in “Sola Scriptura”, when I can see that that phrase is more limiting than the *actual *belief that includes more than scripture alone?

Why do Catholics say that they believe Mary is “Co-Redemptrix”? “Sola Scriptura” is a handy traditional slogan. To understand what it means, you have to take the trouble to listen to people rather than caricaturing them.

I have stopped using it to describe my own beliefs, BTW.

Edwin

 

[Truthstalker]

Sola Scriptura is seldom solo: by that assonance I mean that usually it is in the context of a set of theological statements, such as the Solas of the Reformation. Catholic attacks I have seen on it often either isolate it, thus distorting it, or focus on a version of SS different from the one I posted. Again, I think there is room within Catholicism for an acknowledgement that in some matters the Scripture reigns supreme. I would be interested in seeing if a Catholic can re-word the statement to make it acceptably Catholic:

Scripture is self-attesting and being Truth, requires our unreserved submission in all areas of life. The infallible Word of God, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, is a complete and unified witness to God’s redemptive acts culminating in the incarnation of the Living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible, uniquely and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, is the supreme and final authority on all matters on which it speaks.

The following is my attempt to make it Catholic:

Scripture requires our submission in all areas of life. The infallible Word of God, the seventy three books of the Old and New Testaments, is a unified witness to God’s redemptive acts culminating in the incarnation of the Living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible, uniquely and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, is the supreme and final authority on all matters on which it speaks, in unity with the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church.

 

[rtconstant]

Sola Scriptura is seldom solo: by that assonance I mean that usually it is in the context of a set of theological statements, such as the Solas of the Reformation. Catholic attacks I have seen on it often either isolate it, thus distorting it, or focus on a version of SS different from the one I posted. Again, I think there is room within Catholicism for an acknowledgement that in some matters the Scripture reigns supreme. I would be interested in seeing if a Catholic can re-word the statement to make it acceptably Catholic:

You are right that often people are discussing two different things when debating SS. The confusion for Catholics is that the definition of SS seems to change between people. Now you were kind of enough to provide a written statement of your denomination’s concept of SS. That is very helpful (and interesting ). Out of curiosity do you hold to your denomination’s definition?

Scripture requires our submission in all areas of life. The infallible Word of God, the seventy three books of the Old and New Testaments, is a unified witness to God’s redemptive acts culminating in the incarnation of the Living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible, uniquely and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, is the supreme and final authority on all matters on which it speaks, in unity with the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church.

Actually that’s not bad. Really the only thing that I’d change is that I’d lower the case of the “w” in “Word”. Other than that I think I’d be comfortable with it. I’ll be interested in what my more knowledgable brothers have to say.

Also Truthstalker in a previous post when I was bring up the Word of God issue I hope you understand I used strong language to allude to a potential natural end that is bad. However, I hope that you didn’t think I was implying that or your church took things to that level. I was simply saying that it can been seen that way, or that someone who is less knowledgable could take it there.

Sometimes when I post what I type comes across as more aggressive than what I intended I don’t always realize that until it is to late.

 

[Scottgun]

The SolA vs. SolO thing is a distinction without a difference: See:

How Different (In Nature and Ultimate Effect) Are SolO Scriptura and SolA Scriptura: Part I

Part II

And for the inevitable charge that Dave doesn’t know the difference:

, or, "Why History is Important For All Christians"SOLA Scriptura**SOLO Scriptura

I part company, however, concerning whether SAS overcomes the fundamental difficulties that it claims bring down SOS, but not SAS. I believe SAS (i.e., in its more respectable manifestations such as Mathison’s) is a noble attempt to salvage a hopeless position. It’s a valiant effort which is inevitably doomed to failure. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, and *all *forms of sola Scriptura, no matter how nuanced and sophisticated, are that.

Scott

 

[Truthstalker]

I’m not going to engage in argument with links. They cannot argue back.

The quote you furnished is simply opinion.

 

[Truthstalker]

Also Truthstalker in a previous post when I was bring up the Word of God issue I hope you understand I used strong language to allude to a potential natural end that is bad. However, I hope that you didn’t think I was implying that or your church took things to that level. I was simply saying that it can been seen that way, or that someone who is less knowledgable could take it there.

Sometimes when I post what I type comes across as more aggressive than what I intended I don’t always realize that until it is to late.

Not a problem.

 

[cazayoux]

Sometimes when I post what I type comes across as more aggressive than what I intended I don’t always realize that until it is to late.

The same happens to me.
Sometimes, a day or so later, I’ll re-read my post and think, “wow, i sound angry”.
Definitely not my intention.
Please forgive.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

“Sola Scriptura” is a handy traditional slogan.

I have stopped using it to describe my own beliefs, BTW.

Edwin

Seems to be a contradiction within the sentence, “SS” and "tradition"al.

I would agree with not using a limiting moniker.
Jesus gave us such a rich, full faith to follow, anything ‘sola’ would seem to be leaving something out that He gave us.

Peace and Love

michel

 

[Nita]

Sola Scriptura is seldom solo: by that assonance I mean that usually it is in the context of a set of theological statements, such as the Solas of the Reformation. Catholic attacks I have seen on it often either isolate it, thus distorting it, or focus on a version of SS different from the one I posted. Again, I think there is room within Catholicism for an acknowledgement that in some matters the Scripture reigns supreme. I would be interested in seeing if a Catholic can re-word the statement to make it acceptably Catholic:

Quote:
Scripture is self-attesting and being Truth, requires our unreserved submission in all areas of life. The infallible Word of God, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, is a complete and unified witness to God’s redemptive acts culminating in the incarnation of the Living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible, uniquely and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, is the supreme and final authority on all matters on which it speaks.

The following is my attempt to make it Catholic:

Quote:
Scripture requires our submission in all areas of life. The infallible Word of God, the seventy three books of the Old and New Testaments, is a unified witness to God’s redemptive acts culminating in the incarnation of the Living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible, uniquely and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, is the supreme and final authority on all matters on which it speaks, in unity with the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church.

Truthstalker,

The first two sentences in your Catholic version I think are very good. It’s the final sentence that causes a problem. You seem to want the words “supreme and final authority” in the definition, and to have them referring to Scripture. I’m not sure you’d find the Catholic Church applying those adjectives to any “authority” except God.

IMO,the closest you could get to incorporating those adjectives in a similar definition, and still retain a Catholic view, would be to say:
“The Bible, uniquely and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit and interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church, together with Sacred Tradition express God’s supreme and final authority for us.” (or, “…are an expression of the supreme and final authority of God for us.” Or something similar.)

---

Any “authority” where it refers to written work, has to be interpreted. Altho it is not explicitly spelled out in your denomination’s definition, would it be correct to say that the implied meaning is:
The Bible, uniquely and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit (and as interpreted by the individual reader) is the supreme and final authority on all matters on which it speaks.

So, what is your opinion; in the “final” analysis, is it the printed word or the interpreter of the printed word (whether Magisterium or the individual) who is the “final and supreme” authority?

Nita

 

[Truthstalker]

The Holy Spirit is the final interpreter.

I think we agree on that.