It's NOT in the Bible

[pablope]

The term “sola scriptura” is misunderstood by many Catholics and non-Catholics alike. My theory is that it’s the misunderstanding of the intended application of the word “sola”, but that can probably be its own thread.

I would expect that you believe that your Sacred Tradition is supported by Scripture (or at least not contradicting it) otherwise you wouldn’t believe it! I personally just find it silly that people divide over this when, in reality, we should all agree that traditions shouldn’t contradict scripture if we just took the time to calm down and understand each other a bit more.

I am assuming you know the difference between small “t” traditions and big “t” Traditions?

When you say above “traditions”…do you mean the small t?

Have you read this…for your further understanding of Sacred Tradition…mark-shea.com/tradition.html

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I would expect that you believe that your Sacred Tradition is supported by Scripture (or at least not contradicting it) otherwise you wouldn’t believe it! I personally just find it silly that people divide over this when, in reality, we should all agree that traditions shouldn’t contradict scripture if we just took the time to calm down and understand each other a bit more.

Amen!

Sola Scriptura is itself, by definition, a tradition. Both the fact and the manner in which it is manifest in the belief system of several Christian denominations makes that case.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

And what will be the basis for what is definitive and not? Who decides?

Will it be like this…For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation. (calledtocommunion.com/200…clesial-deism/)

Good question. Some things simply are definitive. For example, the Ten Commandments are rather definitive. “You shall not commit adultery.” It’s pretty hard to spiritualize/allegorize that in a way that would make adultery OK. Areas that are gray, simply are gray and left open to a matter of non-dogmatic opinion.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Good question. Some things simply are definitive. For example, the Ten Commandments are rather definitive. “You shall not commit adultery.” It’s pretty hard to spiritualize/allegorize that in a way that would make adultery OK. Areas that are gray, simply are gray and left open to a matter of non-dogmatic opinion.

The CC does teach that one might be guilty of violating this commandment (and others) for actions well short of a physical act outside of marriage.

We recognize that literal interpretations can actually mischaracterize sinful acts when considered in the spirit of the commandments and in the totality of moral teaching, all consistent with Scripture.

 

[Nicea325]

does this refer to the whole bible or just revelations"

peace

If it is the Bible…the question remains: Which Bible? The Bible with 66 books? 73 books? 78 books? Maybe 90 books?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

If it is the Bible…the question remains: Which Bible? The Bible with 66 books? 73 books? 78 books? Maybe 90 books?

or more likely, an individual book of the Bible, namely the one being referenced Revelation

the Bible (anyone’s version) is a collection of books and letters

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Why is it misunderstood? It is very clear what it means: Sola = Only…Scriptura = Scripture. It is no different in Spanish: Sola = Solamente…Scriptura…Escrituras.

Problem with SS lies with its application. Is it a principle? Is it a doctrine? Is it Apostolic Tradition? Etc,etc,etc

Only Scripture, but only for what? People answer that question for themselves without realizing it and not everyone has the same answer. That is why it is misunderstood.

 

[Luvtosew]

I’m not saying all tradition is bad, just some that is taken to the extremes, it can be like a
all you eat buffet, one doesn’t know what to eat, and since some of the food doesn’t seem right or one can’t make out what it is, they decide to leave and go to another restuarant.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

I am assuming you know the difference between small “t” traditions and big “t” Traditions?

When you say above “traditions”…do you mean the small t?

Have you read this…for your further understanding of Sacred Tradition…mark-shea.com/tradition.html

Thank you, I do understand the differences between big T and small t, and out of respect for my Catholic brothers and sisters, I try to use them appropriately even though sometimes I fail or my statements are meant to encapsulate both.

 

[SteveGC]

Good question. Some things simply are definitive. For example, the Ten Commandments are rather definitive. “You shall not commit adultery.” It’s pretty hard to spiritualize/allegorize that in a way that would make adultery OK. Areas that are gray, simply are gray and left open to a matter of non-dogmatic opinion.

So there are gray areas of morality? Meaning, we simply can have our own opinion regarding whether something we do offends God or not? Is contraception sinful for one person, but not sinful for another?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I’m not saying all tradition is bad, just some that is taken to the extremes, it can be like a
all you eat buffet, one doesn’t know what to eat, and since some of the food doesn’t seem right or one can’t make out what it is, they decide to leave and go to another restuarant.

An interesting choice of analogy. A successful restaurant, when expanding or altering its menu, is careful to stick to its chosen cuisine, as not to offend or dissuade its regular patrons.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

The CC does teach that one might be guilty of violating this commandment (and others) for actions well short of a physical act outside of marriage.

We recognize that literal interpretations can actually mischaracterize sinful acts when considered in the spirit of the commandments and in the totality of moral teaching, all consistent with Scripture.

Of course. I agree. Jesus said himself that if man looks at another woman with lust that he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Notice, however, that is merely an extension (by way of clarification) and not a replacement. In other words, it doesn’t mean that I can have physical contact outside of marriage so long as I don’t look at her lustfully, if such a thing is even possible.

Consider another commandment: we are not to worship other gods. That’s pretty clear. Yahweh is the only God and we are to worship Him only. Now, you can extend what it means to “worship” another “god” by perhaps anything that you have prioritized in ahead of God. For example, instead of going to church on Sunday, you decided that you’d rather watch the football game. Is football an idol/god? Have you broken this commandment? Maybe. But that doesn’t change the definitive fact that it is a sin to create a golden calf to worship. You don’t need any outside authority to make that clear.

 

[Nicea325]

Only Scripture, but only for what? People answer that question for themselves without realizing it and not everyone has the same answer. That is why it is misunderstood.

Exactly! Precisely why SS is bogus and history has shown it over and over. Many say it is the final authority on matters of faith and morals. But where does Scripture remotely even say such a thing?

 

[Nicea325]

Of course. I agree. Jesus said himself that if man looks at another woman with lust that he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Notice, however, that is merely an extension (by way of clarification) and not a replacement. In other words, it doesn’t mean that I can have physical contact outside of marriage so long as I don’t look at her lustfully, if such a thing is even possible.

Consider another commandment: we are not to worship other gods. That’s pretty clear. Yahweh is the only God and we are to worship Him only. Now, you can extend what it means to “worship” another “god” by perhaps anything that you have prioritized in ahead of God. For example, instead of going to church on Sunday, you decided that you’d rather watch the football game. Is football an idol/god? Have you broken this commandment? Maybe. But that doesn’t change the definitive fact that it is a sin to create a golden calf to worship. You don’t need any outside authority to make that clear.

Outside authority? Such as?

 

[Luvtosew]

An interesting choice of analogy. A successful restaurant, when expanding or altering its menu, is careful to stick to its chosen cuisine, as not to offend or dissuade its regular patrons.

yes its on my mind,

as its the meal that divides, I"m sure you have heard that before, and you know what I"m talking about.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

So there are gray areas of morality? Meaning, we simply can have our own opinion regarding whether something we do offends God or not?

I believe we can have our own opinion [hopefully a prayerful one] regarding whether something we do offends God or not so long as it does not explicitly say one way or the other in scripture. However, it’s important to note that our opinion doesn’t influence whether or not it actually does or does not offend God.

Is contraception sinful for one person, but not sinful for another?

No. Contraception is either sinful for all or sinful for none. My feelings one way or the other will not change God’s opinion. However, since God chose not to be explicit on whether or not it is a sin, it is left to opinion on whether it actually is or is not.

 

[SteveGC]

Only Scripture, but only for what? People answer that question for themselves without realizing it and not everyone has the same answer. That is why it is misunderstood.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter if you are a proponent of solo or sola; both rely on Sacred Scripture as the final authority. The problem is that books cannot wield authority without interpretation. And we indeed DO need an interpretation. So it boils down to one question. Whose interpretation precisely follow’s God’s intended meanings? Why, for 1500 years of Christianity, was the one Catholic Church this authority for Christians, then due to the actions of a handful of non-authoritative Catholic men, authority for so many suddenly became a matter of themselves and a prayerful reading of Scripture, a transition which has manifested itself in hundreds of thousands of varying interpretations from those prayerful readings?

Obviously, I know the answer. But it is a question to ponder for the solo-ists, and sola-ists, alike.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Exactly! Precisely why SS is bogus and history has shown it over and over. Many say it is the final authority on matters of faith and morals. But where does Scripture remotely even say such a thing?

A misunderstanding has no bearing on whether or not the correct application of the term is fallacious.

And just as a clarification, sola scriptura does not have any authority. It is God who has the authority. So if God says X in scripture and we believe the scriptures are the word of God, then we can take it to the bank that X is true regardless of what tradition or Tradition or any other authority says.

 

[Zundrah]

I suppose the answer is just that it is an assumption that all Christian practices and beliefs should be found in the bible. Otherwise anything can be applied.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter if you are a proponent of solo or sola; both rely on Sacred Scripture as the final authority. The problem is that books cannot wield authority without interpretation. And we indeed DO need an interpretation. So it boils down to one question. Whose interpretation precisely follow’s God’s intended meanings? Why, for 1500 years of Christianity, was the one Catholic Church this authority for Christians, then due to the actions of a handful of non-authoritative Catholic men, authority for so many suddenly became a matter of themselves and a prayerful reading of Scripture, a transition which has manifested itself in hundreds of thousands of varying interpretations from those prayerful readings?

Obviously, I know the answer. But it is a question to ponder for the solo-ists, and sola-ists, alike.

I agree that we all do need an interpretation for [a little/some/much/most] of scripture, but disagree that we need it for all. There is plenty that is black and white.