Catholics, define sola scriptura

[tdgesq]

BTW. Catholics agree with Protestants on the Material Sufficiency of Scripture - that is, that all of God’s revelation is contained explicitly or implicitly within the Bible.

This is the best answer I have seen as to how a Catholic might define what sola scriptura means. The Bible is the standard to which the Church always looks. It’s just that Catholics are always wary of using the term “sola scriptura,” because it is laden with misunderstanding that came out of the Reformation.

I am glad for this post, because it made me think of something that I hadn’t realized before. I’m sure that this is not new insight, but new for me anyway. The Protestant understanding of sola scriptura wasn’t the reason for the Reformation. It couldn’t be, because historically it wasn’t a doctrine accepted by the Christian faithful until the 16th century. It was instead a means to an end.

There isn’t anyway to declare that specific Church teachings are in error unless there is a teaching authority over and above that of the Church, short of a clear and unmistakable logical contradiction perhaps. That means that to dispute the teachings of the Church, a different and greater teaching authority must be posited. And for the Reformers (at least so they claim), that was the individual Christian. Now every Christian can become their own teaching authority and judge the Church, accepting those doctrines they believe make sense and rejecting those that they don’t believe make sense. In the end, the Protestant notion of sola scriptura comes down to the means to reject teachings of the Church they don’t agree with. The end goal is to be able to reject particular Church teachings, whether it be the role of works in salvation, asking for intercession of the saints, or whatever.

What would happen if Protestants made a minimal effort to try and work for a little while under the Catholic understanding of sola scriptura - to try and see how the completeness of revelation in the Bible is consistent with Catholic teaching with respect to that revelation? Unfortunately, I don’t think it will happen. Why? Because the goal, at least originally, of the Protestant notion of sola scriptura is precisely to avoid this. To avoid accepting those difficult teachings that the individual Christian really opposes. I know there is more to it than this, especially when you consider the abuses by some of the Catholic clergy during those times. Still a valid way of looking at things I think.

 

[tequilamac]

I’ve always been told that all Catholic doctrine is biblical. So in this sense don’t we also adhere to sola scriptura?

Yes. In this sense. All doctrine in the Catholic Church must be found in some form in Scripture.

We do hold scripture infallible in the sense that most if not all of what Jesus and the Apostles said to do we do literally.

If it is a parable of course we do not take the parable literally and put out lamps on bushels or sow seeds. But we do take the meaning of the parable literally and act accordingly.

Same thing with the Old Testament except where Jesus fulfills it.

The Old testament is like a world filled with different landscapes. It has poetry, songs, myths, historical sagas and epics. We treat these the same way we do the parables. Interpret the ultimate meaning and accept it literally. The meaning, the intention is accepted literally. Just as the Last Supper is treated literally. And this is the basis for our doctrine.

Other doctrine in which one cannot find a direct statement in the Bible is justified in the same way the Supreme Court creates a new law based on old precedent.

In other words, a doctrine needs to be defined as it has traditionally been acted upon but never declared doctrine. What do we do when it needs to be declared doctrine? Look for it’s precedent. In a sense this is the legal aspect of it. It’s precedent must have a base in scripture.

No doctrine, no dogma, no tradition with a big T exists within the Church that cannot be found to have it’s root in the Scriptures.

No Scripture exists that can contradict a Tradition and a Tradition cannot be contradicted by Scripture. In this sense again we say both Tradition with a big T and Scripture are infallible.

Those who say the Catholic Church does not consider the Bible the infallible word of God are dead wrong.

The Church accepts her own interpretation of the Bible learned over 2000 years of study and tradition as the infallible truth. The Church does not accept the interpretations of other Christian Churches and in this sense for the Church the Bible is not infallible. The Bible is only infallible when interpreted correctly by the Church under the power of the Holy Spirit.

Once a person understands how the Church views the Bible, they can esily see that:
a. The Church is entirely a Bible based Church,
b. All traditions and doctrine are an action or expression of faith in the unerring word of God in the Bible.

Also, a person can readily see from this that out of all the Churches that claim to hold the Bible as their sole authority and to follow God’s word in the literal sense, the Catholic Church is the only Christian Church in existence that actually does so.

Here is one of my favorite examples:

Matthew
26
14 15 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you,
28
for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

Now responses:

Word of Faith ministries- a sola scriptura church: The bread Jesus is referring to is not like the manna in the desert, you don’t literally eat it with your mouth. It’s spiritual only.

Catholics:the disciples did eat the bread literally with their mouth. They did not eat at the Last Supper a spiritual only bread. Therefore we literally eat the bread with our mouth.

Protestants: We do this in memory. He is not really Present, it is a memorial of Him because he said do this in memory of me.

Catholics: We do both. We do this in memory of Him because He said do this in memory of me and He really is Present now within it because He said "This* is* my body, This is the cup of my blood.

One is fallible- the misinterpretation from WOF ministries and the omission from the Protestant because their interpretation is based on assumption with no evidence. The other infallible: Catholic. Infallible because we do exactly what Jesus said to do. We do not need to assume or guess. We have His word for it.

 

[rtconstant]

On the up side Sola Scriptura does make proving the case of Papal Infallibility much easier. Now all we have to do is prove that Pope owns a Bible and we’re done!

 

[tequilamac]

The other reason we say our doctrine follows sola scriptura (which surprisingly we do not go around telling the world we are sola scriptura but in actual practice of doctrine dogman and tradition we are the only sola scriptura church in existence) is our canon.

Our canon was defined ultimately by a council or synod called by Pope Damasus in the year 382AD. Since that time, the books of our Bible have remained totally constant, nothing added or subtracted.

Our understanding of what is there has grown with study, prayer and action. But the word itself is unadulterated.

The only books accepted into the Canon were books recognized within the first three centuries as being true and divinely inspired. In actual fact, these were pretty much the only books used in the Bible from the beginning- 33AD.

What happened in 382 is that the Canon was declared closed and the council affirmed that these books which had always been used anyway were the only books declared fully true and acceptable to the Canon.

In other words, they simply publicly declared what we had already been doing since the beginning. And it has never changed except in language- Greek, Hebrew, Latin, English, Spanish etc. Some things have had to be redefined because not all languages translate accurately or literally.

So all of our doctrine and tradition comes out of the same Bible in existence in the first three centuries.

Again this is an example of how the Catholic Church is truly the only real bible based Church and the only Church that can truthfully claim to be sola scriptura in the sense that everything we do has to have it’s root in the Scriptures. Nothing we do ever can be allowed to contradict Scripture. Nothing. Surprise.

 

[rr1213]

Scripture interpretation with tradition is much like a supreme court decision using precedent.

Howzat?

Pretty close. And look how much of a mess that Supreme Court has made of the Constitution.

 

[VociMike]

Pretty close. And look how much of a mess that Supreme Court has made of the Constitution.

The difference being, they don’t have divine guidance and protection from error. Why can people be so certain that the writers of scripture could be protected from error, and so certain at the same time that the Church cannot be protected? Why can some people have such a limited idea of the powers of God?

 

[tequilamac]

The difference being, they don’t have divine guidance and protection from error. Why can people be so certain that the writers of scripture could be protected from error, and so certain at the same time that the Church cannot be protected? Why can some people have such a limited idea of the powers of God?

Because they have no faith in anything really. Not the Bible, not Christ when He said He would always be with us, and obviously not the Supreme Court either.

There is another reason why the Church could be so certain of being protected from error and that is the Scripture. All doctrine has come from the original unadulterated words of Christ.

 

[mark_a]

Pretty close. And look how much of a mess that Supreme Court has made of the Constitution.

Surely you aren’t suggesting that the Church has made a mess of the Church are you?

For all the denoms out there, bible interpretation concerning faith is easy. It is easy to not go to confession, to call no man father, or to reject the communion of saints, to believe in faith but no works. All these supposed rules make it easy to look down your nose at Catholics.

But proper interpretation concerning faith leads us to the proper moral values, and that’s where the rubber meets the road.

Not that I’m very good at the morals application to my own life.

So open up a thread about abortion or artificial birth control and challenge the Catholic view. You’ll find very little participation by adherants to SS or SF.

 

[Mijoy2]

I was raised evangelical Protestant. Along with many other churches over 40 years, I spent two years in the Reformed Church in America. My daughter graduated from Calvin College.

Here is what we were taught regarding sola Scriptura. This is actually a quote from R.C. Sproul’s website:**

*"The Bible is a normative book. **The church has declared that the Bible is ***the “Norm of norms, and without norm.” A norm is a standard, a measuring rod by which things are judged. We may use many lesser standards to regulate our lives, but all such regulations must be subordinate to Scripture. To be the “Norm of norms” is to be the superlative norm, the standard by which all other norms are measured. The Bible is not simply “first among equals” - it has no parity with other standards. As Jesus is exalted to be Lord of lords and King of kings, so we submit to His Word as the Norm of norms, the standard of truth and the one rule for the people of God.

God is the Lord of heaven and earth, and He alone is able to impose absolute obligation upon His creatures. He does this through the written word. The reformers of the sixteenth century recognized this unique authority of the Bible, expressing it in the watchword Sola Scriptura, “the Scripture alone.” The reformers did not despise other authorities, or deny the value of tradition and the creeds, but they distinguished the singular authority of the Bible, “the only infallible rule of faith and practice.”

If you want to read the entire article from which this quote is taken, please follow this link: ligonier.org/publishing_studybible_introduction.php

There were many reasons I left evangelical Protestantism to become Catholic, but one of the main reasons was that I came to see the fallacy, in fact, the evil, in the doctrine of sola Scriptura. It is an evil doctrine that has divided Christians and hindered the work of the Holy Spirit in this world. I didn’t know ANYTHING about Catholicism when I formed that conclusion, I based it on forty years of personal experience with churches and Christians who taught sola Scriptura. When I learned that Catholicism didn’t teach this doctrine, I was relieved and grateful.

Very good post. Notice what I outlined (red). Isn’t this a contradiction in Sprouls’ very point?

 

[rr1213]

Surely you aren’t suggesting that the Church has made a mess of the Church are you?

For all the denoms out there, bible interpretation concerning faith is easy. It is easy to not go to confession, to call no man father, or to reject the communion of saints, to believe in faith but no works. All these supposed rules make it easy to look down your nose at Catholics.

But proper interpretation concerning faith leads us to the proper moral values, and that’s where the rubber meets the road.

Not that I’m very good at the morals application to my own life.

So open up a thread about abortion or artificial birth control and challenge the Catholic view. You’ll find very little participation by adherants to SS or SF.

Most evangelicals are pro-life and oppose abortion

 

[Tom]

Pretty close. And look how much of a mess that Supreme Court has made of the Constitution.

The supreme court was not promised by God, to be led to all truth, as were the leaders of the Catholic Church.
In John chapter 14 the audience is the Apostles, the leadership of His Church. The “you” is addressed soley to the Apostles and their successors, as opposed the the “world”.
www.drbo.org:

John 14,16 And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. 17 The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you.

*16 “Paraclete”… That is, a comforter: or also an advocate; inasmuch as by inspiring prayer, he prays, as it were, in us, and pleads for us.

16 “For ever”… Hence it is evident that this Spirit of Truth was not only promised to the persons of the apostles, but also to their successors through all generations.*

www.drbo.org:

Jn 14,26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.
*26 “Teach you all things”… Here the Holy Ghost is promised to the apostles and their successors, particularly, in order to teach them all truth, and to preserve them from error. *

It should be fairly apparent that the Holy Spirit does not give this gift or charism to each individual Christian. Although we are all given gifts of the Spirit, only one group, collectively, is guaranteed this charism of being led to all truth by the Holy Spirit, that group is the leadership of the Catholic Church. I have no doubt the thousands of different protestant churches are filled with the Holy Spirit, but nowhere has it been guaranteed they will be led to all truth. There is only one truth, not thousands. Separate yourself from the truth and eventually you will lead yourself into a lie. That isn’t meant to be a mean comment, but please, protestants, look at your beliefs as opposed to the Catholic Church. Research and find the truth.

 

[Bonnie]

As an ex-protestant (Catholic since '76!), I was brought up on the idea of sola scriptura, but I don’t remember any specific teaching on it. It was sort of a given, like the rapture before the 2nd coming.

What I do remember is the pastor of the last protestant church I attended being asked about abortion. He declared it was up to the individual because he couldn’t find a prohibition of it in the Bible. I don’t know why he didn’t look at the 10 commandments - Thou shalt not kill. Unless he didn’t believe the baby in the womb was truly human.

 

[mark_a]

Most evangelicals are pro-life and oppose abortion

True, and very good at it. No one speaks better for these truths.

And how are they with abortificients (artificial birth control). Are the authorities of your respective churches presenting a united teaching about the evils of ABC?

The authority of the Catholic Church is. Has. And always will.

 

[rr1213]

And how are they with abortificients (artificial birth control). Are the authorities of your respective churches presenting a united teaching about the evils of ABC?

I’d say that it was fair to say that most Protestant Churches do not teach that contraception is a sin. Some do (often the most fundamentalist ones actually) but most probably do not.

 

[mark_a]

I’d say that it was fair to say that most Protestant Churches do not teach that contraception is a sin. Some do (often the most fundamentalist ones actually) but most probably do not.

So who’s beating the drum about the truth about birth control pills? It is not, for the most part, Evangelical Protestants or any other unobscure Protestant.

Is it the government? the drug companies? the AMA?

And the Catholic teaching authority goes even further:
no barriers
no spermacides
no mutilation

Is the Church in your opinion wrong here?

 

[rr1213]

So who’s beating the drum about the truth about birth control pills? It is not, for the most part, Evangelical Protestants or any other unobscure Protestant.

Is it the government? the drug companies? the AMA?

And the Catholic teaching authority goes even further:
no barriers
no spermacides
no mutilation

Is the Church in your opinion wrong here?

I don’t know how I got drawn into a discussion about contraception, but, yes, I do not follow the Catholic Church’s teaching on that issue. I do think that the Catholic Church’s stance against abortion is correct.

 

[mark_a]

I don’t know how I got drawn into a discussion about contraception

Sorry about that. I hate it when the same thing happens to me. It happens on so many threads, we start off talking about one thing, and then. . . . .

My mind subconciously is thinking if the Church is right about one thing, then she’s right about another. I kinda think all the theological stuff (solas, Tradition, etc.)is more about worship “style”.

but, yes, I do not follow the Catholic Church’s teaching on that issue. I do think that the Catholic Church’s stance against abortion is correct.

Not even abortificients? Evangelical Protestants may think the Catholic Church is out of touch concerning barriers, withdrawal, and 'cides, but birth control pills can cause spontanious abortions.

You can’t turn a blind eye to that fact. If a life begins at conception in the voting booth, it begins at conception in your wife too.

 

[Cat]

Someone mentioned that they don’t like the term “The Word of God” used for the Bible.

Hate to tell ya this, y’all, but there are a lot of Protestants who believe that the Bible IS Jesus.

I am not kidding. I have run across this many times in various Protestant online groups, as well as from real-life Protestants. They honestly believe that the actual physical Bible IS Jesus Christ.

Really. This post is not a joke or sarcasm.

For the record, this is not what I was taught growing up evangelical Protestant, but I have to admit, it was a belief in the back of my mind.

I’ve tried to explain that the word “logos” did not mean “book”, but was a Greek term that had a much more broad meaning, and that John chose to use the word “logos” to explain Who Jesus is.

But they don’t buy it. “Nope,” they tell me, “the Bible is the Word of God, and Jesus is the Word of God, therefore, the Bible is Jesus. God said it, I believe it, that settles it. I don’t believe in reading all kinds of fancy ‘translations’ into the Bible. God has protected the translation into other languages, and if He says the Bible is Jesus, then I agree with Him!”

I can see why the Catholic Church came up with the doctrine of “invincible ignorance.” I would propose a new doctrine: “invincible retardedness.” To me, the argument that I quoted above makes it seem that these Protestants have some kind of mental disability.

 

[rr1213]

FWIW, that is not what I’ve seen. I’ve spent 20 years in the Methodist Church, 20 years in the Episcopal Church and a few years here and there in Presybterian, Baptist and Lutheran Churches.

 

[Stephen_C]

So that begs the question…What is sola scriptura? Better yet, what is your definition Martin? Could not find the definition of it in the Bible…go figure.