Is Sola Scriptura what Catholics now believe?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gorgias,
I am pleased both of us agree that all dogma is not explicitly in the Bible. I mentioned this against myself, since I claimed that revelation is based on the Bible as interpreted by the Church.

AugustTherese,
As I have been heavily criticized recently I submitted my recent post which I thought would be accepted without criticism. It seems I was wrong.,
 
NoelFitz said:
AugustTherese,
As I have been heavily criticized recently I submitted my recent post which I thought would be accepted without criticism. It seems I was wrong.,
Click to expand...
I do not think that anyone is criticizing you as a person. Rather, we are constructively criticizing your words with as much grace and charity as possible. If you have felt an abrasive tone from anyone, let me apologize on behalf of all of us. <3
 
My contention is the Church NEEDLESSLY explainiing our ‘stances’ on subject matter in an effort to appease issues that are relavent to those COMPLETELY OUTSIDE the Faith (Ie: our stance on speaking in ‘tongues’ in an effort address Anabaptist practices). Do we do the same to address Hinduism and speak about their chakras?

The Church should tell the hard truths about Scripture.

-Scrioture has been used by Satan himself to destroy the body of Christ. (in the desert)
-Scripture can lead to our own destruction. (St. Peter himself says this)
-Scripture can NOT provide salvation like we might think (Jesus red letter says this).
-Scripture is beneficial for doctrine etc. but salvation is NOT listed as it being BENEFICIAL.

This means it can literally work AGAINST you if anything. I wouldnt say all of this if I havent had countless hours in the trenches and saw the damage it can cause. Especially Revelation/Apocalypse. That book blinds people for 20, 40 years. It literally becomes their religion.
 
AugustTherese,
many thanks for your kind words.
In fact as this thread proceeds I see I need to modify my original views.
My view was that revelation is based on the Bible, as interpreted by the Church.
But it has been pointed out that dogmas such as eh Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are not explicitly in the Bible.
 
NoelFitz said:
It is an interesting point that the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are not in the Bible. Thus all Catholic Dogmas are not Bible based. This need reflection
Click to expand...
Okay what he’s talking about is a specific definition of ‘Sola Scriptura’ which basically says (paraphrased by myself):

“As pertaining to SALVATION, the Church shall profess, teach and believe, ONLY those things which can be ‘sufficiently demonstrated’ in Scripture. We have no doubts the (three) Creeds of Faith are fully demonstrated in Scripture.” (yes they specifically mention the Creeds so we can gather they are a ‘benchmark’).

Anyone who examines the Creeds can spend their whole life attempting to match what is found in them to Scripture. It will not be possible unless they are lead/guided to understand what they are reading. What does this mean exactly? See below:

Acts 8:30 Philip ran over and heard the man reading from the prophet Isaiah. Philip asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?"

Acts 8:31 The man replied, “How can I, unless someone GUIDES/LEADS me?” And he urged Philip to come up into the carriage and sit with him. [ὁδηγήσῃ = to lead/guide]

That mis-translation is important because that specific word to ‘lead/guide’ is used only ONE OTHER TIME in the NT - and that is with the Spirit who will LEAD us and teach us all things (i think thats the verse. on Ipad now). This should cause us to question WHO is really teaching and guiding us? The Spirit? Apostles? Men? All? The reality is, God’s Holy Spirit indeed guided the specific works of those blessed men who wrote and the Creeds of our Faith. And yes they were indeed guided to reference the related Scripture thereof.

But that guidance has now ENDED (on that particular work obviously). Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE to grab the Creeds and reference them in the Bible perfectly, and without confusion. Why? Because Scripture is LOADED with landmines so you must tread carefully. Scripture ‘divinely’ raises doubts as a safegaurd so that ONLY THOSE ordained are ABLE to reference it without error. It’s in later HINDSIGHT we perceive thier guidance as divine.

UNLIKE the Anabaptists (35% of American ‘Christianity’, 5% worldwide), The Protestant Church has placed their belief and trust in the Holy Spirit AND the Catholic Church in Guiding the men who wrote our Creeds which is VITAL. This is a decree of SUBMISSION which legally places them in Rome (Romans 1:7) and which is WHY Protestants ARE catholics, but in a state of protest - despite their limited sacraments and various errors.

The Holy Spirit will NOT guide men all over again. We have an EXPECTATION to be like the Eunuch above; to submit ourselves to be guided by those who hold this ordination. These men shall act to guide us too (1 Cor 11:1).

ie: The Protestants protest that marriage in regards to salvation is NOT sufficiently found in Scripture, and thus, this Sacrament is NOT a valid determinant for salvation. Are they correct? Did we deny them deeper occult teachings on this matter?
 
Last edited:
NoelFitz said:
AugustTherese,
many thanks for your kind words.
In fact as this thread proceeds I see I need to modify my original views.
My view was that revelation is based on the Bible, as interpreted by the Church.
But it has been pointed out that dogmas such as eh Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are not explicitly in the Bible.
Click to expand...
You’re most welcome, NoelFitz! They are not explicitly/formally found in Scripture, just as both the Dogmas of the Trinity and Incarnation are not. However, the Glorious Assumption and Immaculate Conception are implicitly/materially found in Scripture.
 
NoelFitz said:
But it has been pointed out that dogmas such as eh Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are not explicitly in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Question: Did Philip speak to the Eunuch about Baptism?

Acts 8:35-36 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, told him the good news about Jesus. 36 And as they went on the way, they came upon some water; and the eunuch said [to Philip], Look! here is water. What is preventing me to be baptized?

The facts are, things unwritten in Scripture, can have MORE basis in truth and reality than things that ARE written in scripture (OT especially). This is why the Church says NOT to read the OT as a historical book. Christ says ‘It is written’. These written things he cites does not hold a lot of weight as far as Christ is concerned.

But by extension though, you would have to take on the Anabaptist/Jewish/Masonic view that Christ was ‘the best interpreter’ of the OT. The Anabaptists decieved me into the same lies long ago. They want you to place the OT as you idol, and then everything else, including Christ, stems from the study of the OT Scripture. So to be like Christ, study OT Scripture really well and see the light of the OT like Jesus must have. (because they dont understand that he was God and light and dark dont mix).

I would say to you, Christ had no need whatsoever to follow the law, be crucified on a cross, get punished, etc. I would say that Christ came as a stranger introducing a new God that was foreign to those people. I would say God was setting up the Roman empire to recieve Christ and be his true people. I would say that Christ could have been born through Mary wherever Satan ruled the earth and whatever religious system was setup so he could take the monopoly he held over God and set us free. I could say the OT had no requirment whatsoever on humanities salvation. This is the problem with Anabaptists/Masons/Muslims/Jews. They think God begins in a written philosophy.

Actually, other beliefs, more grounded in metaphysical science like Platonism are/were MUCH MORE closer to the truth of God. Just ask any St. Augustine and the other Church Fathers their background. This is why they ONLY interpreted the OT as typeshadows. God chose these scholars for a reason. I would MUCH rather be a Manichean than follow whatever is in Mosaic Law. The ONLY TIME the Chatecism says you are garunteed NOT to have salvation is if you attempt follow the law. That’s why Jesus says ‘YOU’RE LAW’ not ‘OURS’. And in that verse, he is referring to the WHOLE OT.

The Old Testament essentially teaches carnal desires and temptations that has led to countless wars, violence, schisms. It teaches a personal relationship with a host of demi-gods to fulfill a particular desire. It teaches to make offerings to idols to appease a legion of demi-gods. Making offerings to man made idols. Making humans as idols (last chapter of Job). Promoting Human Sacrifice, Child Sacrifice, animal sacrifice, false promises of salvation, incest, child abuse, rape, etc.

Romans 1:7 CALLS those ONLY who are in ROME - NOT readers of a Bible.
 
SnoopSword,
Thank you for your post (#67), but I disagree with much of it. Do you imply Catholics should not have respect for the OT?

I am reminded of
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness. (2 Tim. 3:15-16 NAB)

In your post I see ‘These written things he cites does not hold a lot of weight as far as Christ is concerned.’ Christ had huge respect for the OT.

You wrote
But by extension though, you would have to take on the Anabaptist/Jewish/Masonic view that Christ was ‘the best interpreter’ of the OT.

Again I am reminded of the Bible
for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes. (Matt. 7:29 NAB)

You wrote ‘Christ had no need whatsoever to follow the law.’
Yet one read in the Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. (Matt. 5:17-18 NAB)

I could give other examples where we disagree, but perhaps I have given enough.
 
AugustTherese,
I claim the Incarnation is in the Bible.

And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth. (Jn. 1:14 NAB)
 
The logical [illogical] justification for Sola Scriptura is profound;

Historically the bible [BTW a Catholic Book] was fully authored by the end of the 1st Century; BUT is was not until the fourth century that the Bible became widely used The Early Church suffered widespread and severe persecutions to the point of being literally forced underground.

So oce can say with veracity that the EARLY Church [Catholic Church] grew without the bible as we know it today. CERTAINLY many bible truth were known and taught verbally.

God Bless you,
Patrick
 
NoelFitz said:
It is an interesting point that the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are not in the Bible. Thus all Catholic Dogmas are not Bible based. This need reflection.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Bible is based upon Catholic Doctrine. What came first? The Church and Church Teaching? Or the Bible?

And, yes, the basis of the Immaculate Conception (Hail Full of Grace) and the Assumption (A woman was seen in the heavens) are in the Bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top