Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[po18guy]

There is a lot of misunderstandings about the role of Church Councils throughout the history of the Catholic Church, even by Catholics themselves.

In the gradual revelation of all Truth by the Holy Spirit, not all the teachings of the Church were very widely defined even though widely accepted by the faithful. In the liturgy, Scripture readings were used and Feast days developed, together with direct revelations of God through chosen souls who we call mystics who possessed charismatic gifts of prophecy and knowledge. As St Augustine proclaimed and Dei Verbum, the Vatican II document reiterated; “God, the inspirer and author of both Testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New.”

Do you agree with this statement, Just asking4? This is the key to the future revelations of teachings that you deny are “in the Bible”.

Jesus told His disciples there was too much to take immediately but He would reveal all and this is how it was. The prefigurng of the Chair of Peter by the Chair of Moses is an excellent example.

Whenever there was a conflict about a Church teaching that the Magisterium believed to be serious, a Church Council was called just as the pattern was set by the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. In fact Peter got up and addressed the assembly, claiming his leadership; “My brothers, you know perfectly well that in the early days, God made His choice among you: the pagan were to hear the Good News from me and so become believers.” Acts 15: 7-8. The conflict was resolved by the Council and the Truth was dogmatically declared in a much deeper explanatory manner so that never again within the Church would that heresy arise.

The Council of Trent had a huge task of dealing with all the heresies brought about by the Protestant Reformation, which incidentally was actually a deformation in the view of the Catholic Church. There was no doubt reform was needed, but not the Schism that followed. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide wreaked havoc as did Luther’s attempts at discarding certain books of Scripture. Both these major heresies were addressed together with correction of other false teachings which abounded caused by the diverse interpretations of Scripture which divisions grow by the day. The definitive listing of the books of the Bible which of course included the DCs was the final reiteration of the true Canon of the Bible. They were not added at Trent, just as the teaching on the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist was not changed or added to. The term Transubstantiation was coined to make absolutely clear what had been taught from the beginning from Jesus teaching in John Ch 6.

When Church Councils declare Dogmas from the Chair of Peter, (the Pope reigning at the time), much previous study of the writings of the Early Church Fathers, teaching from Scripture, how it has been understood and believed, used in feast day celebrations, and taught in papal Encyclicals; even art is considered as seen by the many famous paintings of the Assumption of Our Lady, centuries before the Dogma in 1950 Each Dogma takes years of preparation on the part of Theologians and Scripture scholars renowned throughout the world. When the Pope is satisfied after long prayer and exhortation of the Holy Spirit, he will declare the dogma. Another example is the dogma of Papal Infallibility which has nothing to do with papal sinning. Not one of the few “bad” Popes defined a dogma or changed or denied any teaching (as far as I know).

Incidentally, the Council of Trent, in correcting another heresy of unbelief of the Protestants viz; “Whoever refuses to believe in miracles let him be anathema.” Ironically, just as many Protestants have come round to a belief in the True Presence as many Catholics have turned away finding the teaching “too hard to take”: so many Charismtic Protestants believe in miracles, manifested in prophecy and healings, spiritually and physically.

A very inspiring post. It is an awful lot for a person blinded by sola scriptura to grasp. That is why I believe that they have been cheated. So many assume that the date of definition was somehow the date of “invention” by the church. They conveniently forget that Luther made it possible for the true inventions of SS, SF, OSAS, and all of the other heresies Thank you for this post.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

The DC’s as i said have a long history of contraversy and the church was unable to come to some kind of agreement about them until Trent.

No, the Council of Trent *dogmatically *declared the canon of Scripture to be the 73 books which had been in use in the Church since the canon was determined in 384 AD.

Some historians are doubtful of the motives of the Catholic church at this time to elevate these books to full canonical status.

They already had canonical status, declared 1100 years earlier. The same doubt was held for YEARS regarding the canonical status of Jude, Hebrews, 2 Peter and Revelation, yet you don’t doubt their position in your NT. Why is the NT Deuterocanon OK but not the OT Deuterocanon?

Jesus quoting or not quoting from a book is not the only test that a book had to pass before it was considered Sacred Scripture.

Anytime the NT quotes the OT, the quote is found in the Septuagint, which contained the same books as the Catholic OT. Why wouldn’t you read the same Scriptures that your Saviour read?

 

[KathleenElsie]

That explains a lot.

Sure does.

 

[guanophore]

Sure does.

Well, don’t be fooled. If one reads the postings coming from this username over time it seems clear that there is a great variety of writing styles, experience, education (or lack of it).

Back to the topic, SS is a doctrine that rules itself out, because it uses as the highest authority something which does not contain the elements necessary for authority (intention, intellect, and will) and which does not testify of itself that it is to be used in this manner.

The Reformers needed to replace the authority of corrupt clergy persons in Europe with some other source of authority in order to justify rebelling against the Church founded by Christ. Sola Scriptura accomplished this goal. We now see the fruit of that division creating more division as the days go by.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Still waiting for JA4’s proof that scripture is the sole rule of faith.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Still waiting for JA4’s proof that scripture is the sole rule of faith.

In Mark Shea’s book, By What Authority? he tells that his conversion to Catholicism began when he realized that he, as a non-Catholic, did believe wholeheartedly certain matters of faith/morals that could not be supported with Scripture. (Read an excerpt here.)

The non-Catholic rejects some Marian dogmas, for example, because they don’t see them spelled out in Scripture, yet they embrace the Trinity, oppose abortion, and believe that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, and believe that Scripture is the sole rule of faith - none of these things are spelled out in Scripture either. Just as has been said many times, Sola Scriptura is self-refuting.

 

[Kay_Cee]

In Mark Shea’s book, By What Authority? he tells that his conversion to Catholicism began when he realized that he, as a non-Catholic, did believe wholeheartedly certain matters of faith/morals that could not be supported with Scripture. (Read an excerpt here.)

The non-Catholic rejects some Marian dogmas, for example, because they don’t see them spelled out in Scripture, yet they embrace the Trinity, oppose abortion, and believe that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, and believe that Scripture is the sole rule of faith - none of these things are spelled out in Scripture either. Just as has been said many times, Sola Scriptura is self-refuting.

I had to smile when I read this.

I have Mark Shea’s book and have read it several times.

Thanks for the recommendation, though.

Now let’s see if JA4 can prove his statement is true or if he continues to ignore my posts.

 

[guanophore]

I had to smile when I read this.

I have Mark Shea’s book and have read it several times.

Thanks for the recommendation, though.

Now let’s see if JA4 can prove his statement is true or if he continues to ignore my posts.

He has admitted that his doctrine of SS is based on his own study and “conclusion”. I think that is as far as we can get.

 

[distracted]

The early protestants were still heavily influenced by the Catholic church and things like these things took time to work out. The history of the DC’s is not like the other 66 books. They were always full of contraversy through history.

i notice you don’t respond to a lot of my questions… probably cause you have no good answer… happens a lot here @ CAF…

Jesus once had the intention of healing a man with some disease (leprosy??) and he asked the scribes & or whomever was there… if it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath. They didn’t answer him either… probably because they knew that they were wrong…

Once again, i get to know what Jesus had to deal with. :whacky:

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
True and the same applies to you. You to are using your own “personal interpretations” of what you believe and you even personally interpret the Scriptures yourself.
Is this a sin in the Catholic church?

GeorgiaPeach
Of course the same applies to me.

Unlike you, I have no need for personal interpretation. I have the Church founded by Christ, the one He promised to guide in truth.

Even your statement here is your own personal interpretation of what you think and believe your church teaches. Take your belief that Christ promised to guide the church into all the truth. You must personally interpret that for yourself to have some understanding what it means. No one can do that for you.

 

[justasking4]

So far, it only means that you have accepted the majority of Catholic Sacred Tradition, based on your own “study and conclusion”.

On the contrary! You are claiming as the ultimate rule in matters of faith a book which cannot authenticate itself, and which you consider inspired-inerrant based only on your own “study and conclusions”. Unfortunately, you have again proved the point of the OP that you are using something outside of scripture to validate the Scripture, even if it is only your own opinion.

This is a case of bearing false witness against your neighbore, ja4. You might want to check on the acceptability of this practice in the book of Deuterotomy. You have been shown repeatedly on many threads that the DC’s were included since prior to the canonization in the 4th century. Or, you may wish to check with your cadre. Maybe you can do a search, and just review what was written to y’'all?

I think the answer is relevant to this thread, too. I believe you urged that one should compare what the Church teaches to scripture, since you perceive that they are in conflict with one another. This is one of the ways we know that SS is incorrect. The scripture was produced by the Catholic Church, and that is why nothing in it contradicts Catholic Teaching.

No, but that belongs on another thread. The only part relevant here is that the personal interpretation of inspired-inerrant = sole ulitimat authority.

False, and off topic.

Here is what the New Catholic ency says about the DC"s—You can apologize for accusing me of bearing false witness after you read this.

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books.** The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture.** The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).”

Hopefully this will help to clear up your confusion on this matter…
View attachment 4124

 

[justasking4]

Still waiting for JA4’s proof that scripture is the sole rule of faith.

i have already answered this in many ways. Now lets see how it works out in practice by comparing it with the teachings of the Catholic church.

 

[distracted]

"St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books.** The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture.** The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books.H]

i think it is in 1John where it speaks of something to the effect of “intellectualizing” too much… about Jesus

You (of course) never answered my question about what the basic “beef” is you have with the Church

 

[savedsinner]

Even your statement here is your own personal interpretation of what you think and believe your church teaches. Take your belief that Christ promised to guide the church into all the truth. You must personally interpret that for yourself to have some understanding what it means. No one can do that for you.

Acts 8:30-31
Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

 

[guanophore]

Even your statement here is your own personal interpretation of what you think and believe your church teaches. Take your belief that Christ promised to guide the church into all the truth. You must personally interpret that for yourself to have some understanding what it means. No one can do that for you.

This is true. How does one check oneself? Both strands of Divine Revelation are available for this, Scripture, and Tradition.
When one’s understanding goes against one, the other, or both, then one knows that one is lacking understanding somewhere.

Here is what the New Catholic ency says about the DC"s—You can apologize for accusing me of bearing false witness after you read this.

"St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books.** The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture.**

Sorry, ja4. St. Jeromes “judgement”, as valuable as it is, does nt constitute authoritative Catholic Teaching. His personal belief about why the books were circulated is just that - his judgement. Even saints, theologians, and biblical scholars can believe errors.

The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon)."

Hopefully this will help to clear up your confusion on this matter…

A proclaimation was made at Trent to definitevly settle the matter because there was controversy. HOwever, if you look back to the early centuried even before the canon was closed, you will see that all these books are included.

Later controversy does not change the facts.

 

[guanophore]

i have already answered this in many ways. Now lets see how it works out in practice by comparing it with the teachings of the Catholic church.

Indeed you have, none of them pursasive. Now, you seem to wish to derail this thread, by going on an attack against the very Sacred Tradition that produced the NT to which you claim to adhere.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Still waiting for JA4’s proof that scripture is the sole rule of faith.

Maybe one of the multiple personalities can answer.
But I doubt they can or will even try. It seems to be* run around the issue *not answer the issue.

 

[runandsew]

i have already answered this in many ways. Now lets see how it works out in practice by comparing it with the teachings of the Catholic church.

I am not quite sure what you are asking here, but for my 2 cents worth I would say look to all the church councils which were held to refute heresy, and in that you will see how it worked out in practice.

Keep in mind that most of the heresies were by groups who held to scripture alone apart from the Sacred Tradition passed down from the Apostles.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Here is what the New Catholic ency says about the DC"s—You can apologize for accusing me of bearing false witness after you read this.

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books.** The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture.** The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).”

Hopefully this will help to clear up your confusion on this matter…
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4124&d=1221932122
quote]

Sorry just proves that Holy Mother Church can and does clarify things as needed.

 

[po18guy]

Even your statement here is your own personal interpretation of what you think and believe your church teaches. Take your belief that Christ promised to guide the church into all the truth. You must personally interpret that for yourself to have some understanding what it means. No one can do that for you.

You are into relativism. That leads to atheism. It is not a “belief” that Christ sent the Holy Spirit to guide the church into all truth. It’s His word. It’s in your bible! What other pages are you tearing out due to personal disagreement?

The following is also in your bible. Do you believe it? 2 Peter 1:19-20 (King James Version!) “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

Private interpretation caused trouble even for the Apostles! And, yet you persist. No wonder you are confused. I’ll continue to pray for you.