"Sola scriptura" debate (Youtube)

[Magnus1981]

Hi folks,

I’m an avid fan and user of Youtube, and occasionally I come across some pretty good Catholic apologetics discussing a range of issues such as scripture, moral theology and so on.

This particular video (youtube.com/watch?v=RJskrQq3dXM) has sparked quite a tense debate in the most recent commentary below, but I was wondering what you all made of it?

If I could also ask this as well:

If you could sum up in one sentence why “Sola Scriptura” is unworkable (i.e. flawed doctrine), how would you articulate that sentence; what would you say?

 

[NewCatholic1207]

Scripture, taken out of the context of Holy Tradition and lacking an authentic interpreting authority, by itself cannot support the unity of the Church.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

Sure a Catholic can be sola scriptura, as the bible requires obedience to traditions, uses them, and expects people to be obedient to the Church.

 

[MonFrere]

If you could sum up in one sentence why “Sola Scriptura” is unworkable (i.e. flawed doctrine), how would you articulate that sentence; what would you say?

Sola Scriptura is unworkable because it has never worked when applied to any Protestant church matter in its 500 year history.

… all clinical trials failed – time to move on.

MonFrere

 

[PJY86]

Sola Scriptura is a self-defeating doctrine for two reasons: 1) No where in Scripture is such a doctrine found, and 2) By accepting the Scriptures, you are at least implicitly accepting the authority of the Church which compiled the books and declared them Scripture, thus accepting an extra-biblical authority.

 

[teachccd]

Considering that the Quran and the Book of Mormon both claim inspiration, it becomes apparent that the Bible cannot claim inspiration just because it says so.

 

[Magnus1981]

Considering that the Quran and the Book of Mormon both claim inspiration, it becomes apparent that the Bible cannot claim inspiration just because it says so.

Interesting, but between the three, which can claim to be truly inspired and/or inspired by a true (infallible) source? It’s a no-brainer to answer for any Christian, but in a world of absolutes, they can’t all be inspired in the afore mentioned sense, right?

 

[jamison]

Sola Scriptura is unworkable because it has never worked when applied to any Protestant church matter in its 500 year history.

… all clinical trials failed – time to move on.

MonFrere

Quite frankly, it is not as simple as this. I was a Protestant for ten years and I can assure you, most Protestants have never even heard of Sola Scriptura. Most Protestants know nothing of the Catholic Church other than the lies that they’ve been told, such as we worship Mary and we don’t read our Bibles. Protestants themselves can not move on because they simply have no idea. Catholics in general are not reaching out to them. It took me a year and a half of study to convert and I was searching with my mind open.
In my entire time as a Protestant, not once did a Catholic try and show me the truth or even invite me to mass. Many friends of mine had went to Catholic schools yet hardly knew their Bible. I would venture to say that most Catholics I know have little interest in going out and converting Protestants or anyone else. Most Catholics I know don’t even study their Bibles. This is a shame really.
I think many Protestants would convert if they could only hear the truths that they’ve never heard. We as Catholics need to have our hearts open and do much more to reach out to Protestants and bring them to the true Church. We must remember not to act with arrogance (this is in no way referring to the person I’m quoting, I’m speaking in general) but to act with love. There are hundress of millions right here who’ve no idea what we believe.

 

[MonFrere]

Quite frankly, it is not as simple as this. I was a Protestant for ten years and I can assure you, most Protestants have never even heard of Sola Scriptura. Most Protestants know nothing of the Catholic Church other than the lies that they’ve been told, such as we worship Mary and we don’t read our Bibles. Protestants themselves can not move on because they simply have no idea. Catholics in general are not reaching out to them. It took me a year and a half of study to convert and I was searching with my mind open.
In my entire time as a Protestant, not once did a Catholic try and show me the truth or even invite me to mass. Many friends of mine had went to Catholic schools yet hardly knew their Bible. I would venture to say that most Catholics I know have little interest in going out and converting Protestants or anyone else. Most Catholics I know don’t even study their Bibles. This is a shame really.
I think many Protestants would convert if they could only hear the truths that they’ve never heard. We as Catholics need to have our hearts open and do much more to reach out to Protestants and bring them to the true Church. We must remember not to act with arrogance (this is in no way referring to the person I’m quoting, I’m speaking in general) but to act with love. There are hundress of millions right here who’ve no idea what we believe.

You are quite right, jamison. I know one sentence wasn’t sufficient to give a comprehensive response, so I just took a stab at a very short one sentence answer and added a little glib addenda for extra measure. However, I DO think there is truth in my once sentence statement – Sola Scriptura has never solved the disputes that developed within the ranks of Protestantism. It has brought doctrinal division and not doctrinal clarity combined with unity.

You are also very accurate in saying that biblical literacy is dismal among Catholics. But I will add this word of moderation. When I reverted back to the Catholic Church in the year 2000 I came back from Mass and thought OK – “now” what do I do? I certainly couldn’t purchase books from my Protestant book clubs. I actually didn’t know of any Catholic publishing houses. But in time I became absolutely OVERWHELMED. There were SO MANY choices that I knew that I could NEVER get through it all. There were numerous books not just on biblical topics - but there were historical works, theological works, commentaries, apologies, writings of saints, bookhouses with emphasis Catholic Classics on pre Vatican II literature - Catholic movies - Catholic literature (both secular and religious). The intellectual heritage in Catholic authors was also very very deep. I still have not gotten around to reading Christopher Dawson because something else seems to pique my interest. Then, there were pilgrimages to various churches our little rural parish arranged because of the jubilee year 2000; so I visited some of the beautiful old catholic churches in our area as well as the cathedral in Pittsburgh where our bishop resided. Then there was a visit during Lent to do the Stations of the Cross at St. Anthony’s Chapel in Pittsburgh. This little chapter is so rich in history. It’s unbelievable they had relics of ISAIAH!! The Stations there were LIFE SIZE and incredible works of art. (To any Catholic that visits Pittsburgh I strongly recommend VISIT ST. ANTHONY’S CHAPEL.) I went to a mission of one of my first Divine Mercy Sundays and heard a talk by a nun that lived at St. Faustina’s convent in Poland and she gave a fascinating talk of the meaning and theology of Divine Mercy. I began a friendship with her order that lasts to this day. We also had first Friday devotions and I also began Eucharistic Adoration because there was perpetual adoration in a chapel only 20 minutes from my home. In all that time I also went to a few evenings of reflection with the Pittsburgh chapter of Opus Dei.

What I’m saying is that coming from a Protestant background I was thinking OK - I want to now understand the Bible from a Catholic perspective. In a short time I was seeing I was suffering from the lack of vision my Protestant past brought me. What I was a Protestant ALL I HAD was the bible. Being a Protestant there is no multiple choice – you have one choice (and it’s a fabulous choice) and that choice is the bible. Being a Catholic I had so many more opportunities for my spiritual life and development that I honestly couldn’t take it all in. As the Psalm says - my cup runneth o’er. Certainly, I think you will find a host of devoted Catholics each doing important work for the Church. But, in each of these devoted Catholics you will find they each find their “niche” in the Church - some love devotions, some love saints, some love Mary, some love to read - and of those some read classics - some read theology - some read papal writings, some have devotions to a particular saint - and some are biblical. It’s because of this great MULTIPLE CHOICE that many Catholics do not know the scriptures as they should. However, I think this MULTIPLE CHOICE is God’s design - because he made people in MULTIPLE TYPES. Not all people are readers, so not all people he would call would be inclined or geared for bible study. For those with aptitude for this coupled with God’s Spirit it would be a great fit. Some people are geared for prayer and the Catholic Church has MUCH MUCH instruction of prayer. The Church has had great “masters of prayer”; especially in her mystics. The Church has something for everyone; and because of this not all are inclined to the scriptures. But, as you know through the Mass – the Scriptures are ubiquitous to the Church – they are EVERYWHERE. So, I’m confident that even though they may not know them through reading – they’ve been absorbing their content and learning their thought.

MonFrere

 

[PeterK]

If I could also ask this as well:

If you could sum up in one sentence why “Sola Scriptura” is unworkable (i.e. flawed doctrine), how would you articulate that sentence; what would you say?

Magnus,
Wow. What a question.

This is not a direct criticism of the idea of sola scriptura per se as much as of its adherents, but my overall general criticism is this …

The church bodies that adhere to sola scriptura reduce the episodes related in the scriptures to mere anecdotes, drastically diminishing the necessity to apply these episodes to our daily life.

examples:
Marian devotion - The gospel of Luke clearly exalts Mary and her unique role in the salvation of mankind. Most sola scriptura adherents dismiss all things Marian save for Christmas card illustrations and nativity sets.

ordained priesthood - A consecrated priesthood is firmly established in the Torah and maintained up to the time of Christ. The letter to the Hebrews declares we have a new High Priest in Christ. If there is to be a High Priest there must be priests, just like if there is to be a sergeant there must be soldiers. So the ministerial priesthood is not seen as unnecessary but re-aligned to the risen Christ, the new High Priest. Most sola scriptura adherents have nothing that remotely resembles a consecrated priesthood. So all the biblical references to priests and an ordained priesthood are not actualized and are relegated to mere historical anecdote.

transubstantiation - few, if any, adherents of sola scriptura take the words of Jesus literally when he declares the bread and wine to be his actual body and blood. So again, a nice little anecdote about a detail that night but nothing that has to be seriously held as absolutely necessary to one’s Christian faith. The Catholic church holds quite opposite view.

Liturgical sacrifice - like the priesthood, ritual sacrificial worship has a distinguished scriptural pedigree. Most adherents of sola scriptura do not have a sacrifice of the Mass.

Apostolic succession - "Upon this rock… " you know the quote. No body can claim apostolic succession like the Catholic Church, so they claim something else which usually ends up trivializing the episode just quoted. This in turn, again, renders this gospel episode to the realm of anecdote, it is a nice story but we don’t have to try and apply it to our lives.

papal infallibility - It just follows that if Jesus (God) is going to establish a Church and ‘remain with you…’ then this project of God is going to come to fruition. In other words, the will of God cannot fail. If God wills something to exist with a purpose it will indeed achieve that purpose or end, and not because of the people involved, but in spite of the people involved. The will of God simply cannot fail. This is what lies behind papal infallibility, we believe this whole church is God’s idea and plan so it will not fail. The truth of God’s infallibility is reflected and actualized or ‘made real’ for the church of the faithful in the doctrine of papal infallibility. We should expect that a project of God’s would have some tangible infallible aspects to it - that’s not out of line. This idea of God’s infallibility in our midst is not realized in any practical way outside of the Catholic Church. The lack of this understanding trivialized verses like “on earth as it is in heaven.” Some sola scriptura advocates try to make scripture infallible with the result usually being ultra-ultra literalism.

Now, to be certain, one can find fault with the manner in which the Catholic Church actualizes the above examples. My argument, however, is not that these scriptural directives are “perfectly” realized in the Catholic Church, my argument is that at least they are realized and actually part of the Catholic Church - as opposed to being partially actualized or totally absent in practice within churches that subscribe to the idea of sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura does not bring the scriptures to life, Sacred Tradition does. Flawed as it may be, Catholic Church is the only church I see living the entire gospel message as a body.

Peter K