How do Catholics approach Sola Sciptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pathway2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pathway2

Guest
how would Catholics tackle the idea of scriptures alone?
 
Last edited:
Where is it in the bible?
And how do you even know what books are in the bible?
 
It is based on an ideology rather than scripture. It’s not scriptural and therefore a self refuting claim.
 
The title of this thread uses the term solo Scriptura, which would be an issue that both Protestants and Catholics have to “tackle.” I assume you must have meant Sola Scriptura. R.C Sproul wrote an article about the Scriptural basis for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura for Ligonier Ministries. In it, he defines solo Scriptura as follows:
The Bible does not have specific text that suggests that the Bible alone is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Those who delight to point this out, however, typically Roman Catholics and the eastern Orthodox, typically miss the point. First, their energies more often than not are aimed at the Anabaptist error that we call solo Scriptura. Here the person affirms that all he needs is himself and his Bible. The wisdom of the church in history, the community of believers, are all deemed irrelevant to understanding the things of God. Solo scriptura is reprehensible and ignorant and a-historical [emphasis mine].
Click to expand...

There are various ways that Catholics have approached the issue of sola Scriptura. For me, the best attack on the doctrine is that it is not defined in Scripture. In short, it proves too much. If sola Scriptura is true, then it is by necessity false. I have been reading Yves Congar’s book The Meaning of Tradition and I believe that this quote is appropriate for this post:
She [the Church] lived her own life, which had been handed down to her as such, before the texts [of the apostles] and together with them, in the texts and yet not limited to them, independently of them. She did not receive her life from them. She was the Church from the time of the apostles and not the product of their writings; she used these writings, not following them word for word, as a pupil copies an exercise imposed from outside, but treating them as a mirror and yardstick to recognize and restore her image, in each new generation [emphasis in original] (pp. 22).
Click to expand...
In short, the Church existed and had authority prior to the canon. Therefore, it would be absurd to suggest that the Church gains her authority from the canon.

Regards,
tstor
 
I loves me the Bible. I’ve read it all the way through, Genesis to Revelation. I’m still trying to find that verse that teaches Sola scriptura. Maybe it’s in one of the Gnostic Gospels, because it certainly is not in my Bible.
 
Catholics would approach it not so much from a Sola Sciptura (Scripture Alone) approach, but rather from a sort of Prima Sciptura (Scripture First) approach — similar, but not identical, to the Anglican view of Prima Sciptura.

Sacred Scripture is the foundation of Catholic Religion(note I am referring to both the Old AND New Testaments here), but at the same time Sacred Scripture organically grew up in the bosom of Sacred Tradition. Sacred Scripture is unintelligible without Sacred Tradition; Sacred Tradition is baseless without Sacred Scripture. These two things, SS and ST, are inseparable from each other, and to try to understand the one without the other will inevitably lead to gross misunderstandings and propagation of error, which is rendering a grave disservice to Christian Faith.

@tstor gave you a VERY good response above. It’s worth reposting his second quote he offered, as that reiterates my points above.

“She [the Church] lived her own life, which had been handed down to her as such, before the texts [of the apostles] and together with them, in the texts and yet not limited to them, independently of them. She did not receive her life from them. She was the Church from the time of the apostles and not the product of their writings; she used these writings, not following them word for word, as a pupil copies an exercise imposed from outside, but treating them as a mirror and yardstick to recognize and restore her image, in each new generation [emphasis in original] (pp. 22).”
 
Last edited:
The replies on this website are of lesser and lesser quality.

2 Options:

Sola Scriptura or Scripture and Tradition

The only viable alternative is the second one b/c scripture instructs us to observe tradition.

History only supports the second one as well given that scripture was written atleast 50 years into the beginning of the celebration of the sacraments.
 
The Catholic Church does not and never has believed in sola scriptura. None of the ancient, original Churches (RCC, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and other ancient Churches of the East) believe in or have ever believed in sola scriptura. It’s not an issue for Catholics.

Christianity is not a “religion of the book” but is founded on a Person, Jesus Christ, who founded the Church. The Catholic Church teaches through Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium. (Yes, the Scriptures are very important and the 4 Gospels have priority).

IMO, sola scriptura is one of those man-made “traditions of men” that frightens so many protestant Christians. 😑

If you believe in sola scriptura, ask yourself these questions:
  • Where did the canon of Scripture come from?
  • When and by whom was the canon of Scripture decided? Who declared it?
  • What individual or group had (has) authority to declare what is and isn’t Scripture?
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
Sacred Scripture is the foundation of Catholic Religion
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree. The foundation of the Catholic Religion is the Person of Jesus Christ and His Bride, the Church. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment…
 
I agree Jesus is the foundation and keystone of the Faith.

What I meant is all Catholic dogma is grounded in Scripture.
 
Spyridon said:
What I meant is all Catholic dogma is grounded in Scripture
Click to expand...
I think I know what you’re trying to say. Are you saying that all Catholic Dogma can be found in Sacred Scripture, whether implicitly or explicitly?
 
Elf01 said:
Where is it in the bible?

And how do you even know what books are in the bible?
Click to expand...
AND how about the fact that the Church existed without THEE bible for hundreds of years in an organized book form; and that the bible [a Catholic Book BTW] was not fully authored until the END of the 1st Century; at a time when the CHURCH was being severely persecuted by both the Jewish High Priest & Rome. And yet the Blood of Her Martyrs grew the Church [singular] with spectacular growth.

God Bless you

Partick
 
Matt 23
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it;

Jesus taught his diciples to obey the successors of Moses. He reminded them that they sit on Moses’ seat. That they ought to be obeyed. That the interpretation of the written expression of the Law required teachers that carry the authority of Moses.

If Jesus treats the successors of Moses like this, How much more the successors of Himself,?
 
Last edited:
Man made innovation since it is not found in the Scripture and Tradition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top