Sola Scriptura Question

[JJ59]

I can’t answer these questions… any ideas?

If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine? Does this not prove both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?
If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

From bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

 

[Dorothy]

Although Catholics are very much alike with the Orthodox due to the fact that they have validly ordained bishops and priests due to apostolic succession, and therefore valid sacraments; they are in schism with us because they are not in submission to the authority of the Church under the successors of Peter.

 

[JamestheOlder]

You might want to study this from the CA library:

catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

Good reading.

 

[pablope]

I can’t answer these questions… any ideas?

If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine? Does this not prove both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?
If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

From bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

We are not divided in doctrine with the Orthodox. We divided mainly on the issue of the pope, and that is putting it simply.

For more info, search for the great schism of 1054.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I can’t answer these questions… any ideas?

If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine? Does this not prove both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?
If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

From bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

Alright, fine, maybe tradition does divide us (IDK, I’m no theologian), but the Catholic Church has the magisterium, and the Orthodox don’t. So you have Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. And the Catholic Church isn’t divided.

 

[EricFilmer]

…then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine?

Doctrinally speaking, Catholicism and Orthodoxy are almost fully compliant with one another. There will, of course, be some exceptions concerning doctrinal issues (especially concerning the papacy) but there is nothing like the wide disagreements over doctrine found among the various adherents of Sola Scriptura.

Moreover, it is my understanding (and I could be wrong) that the various Orthodox Churches have not been in the practice of defining doctrine for the last few centuries. They believe the first seven ecumenical councils to be valid (as do Catholics) but do not acknowledge the validity of any Catholic ecumenical councils since then. Apparently it is possible for the Orthodox Churches to get together and have their own ecumenical councils but, for whatever reason, they have not elected to do so. I heard somewhere that they believe that a Holy Roman Emperor is needed to convene an ecumenical council (and there hasn’t been one for a long time), but I don’t know if that is true.

In any event, when it comes to the essential dogmas and doctrines of the faith, they were pretty well defined within the first millennium of Christianity in the first seven ecumenical councils (which, as I said, are considered valid by both Catholics and Orthodox Christians).

But in any event, the ultimate question is who has the authority to official define what is found the Deposit of Faith (i.e., God’s public revelation)? The Catholic Church claims that the Magisterium is empowered to settle doctrinal disputes. But adherents of Sola Scriptura say that no one on earth has this authority, and that the ultimate authority for settling doctrinal disputes is the text of the Bible itself. But they are able to draw equally plausible but contradictory interpretations of Scripture, and it is impossible for them to determine whose interpretation is right and whose is wrong.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Its not just the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic who adhere to scripture and tradition and disagree. Oriental Orthodox. Assyrian Church of the East. People were dividing and splitting a long time before the Reformation. It just took off during the Reformation because of access of information ie the information found in books because of the printing press etc.

 

[stevekehl]

Alright, fine, maybe tradition does divide us (IDK, I’m no theologian), but the Catholic Church has the magisterium, and the Orthodox don’t. So you have Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. And the Catholic Church isn’t divided.

Last month I drove past a Byzantine Catholic Church. Is that a denomination of the Catholic Church? If not, why the designation as Byzantine?

 

[pablope]

Last month I drove past a Byzantine Catholic Church. Is that a denomination of the Catholic Church? If not, why the designation as Byzantine?

It is not denomination, but it has something to do with the liturgical rite…in this particular case the Byzantine liturgy is use during their mass.

[SIGN]The Catholic Encyclopedia describes the situation this way: "Within the Catholic Church … Canonical rites, which are of equal dignity, enjoy the same rights, and are under the same obligations. Although the particular churches possess their own hierarchy, differ in liturgical and ecclesiastical discipline, and possess their own spiritual heritage, they are all entrusted to the pastoral government of the Roman pontiff, the divinely appointed successor of St. Peter in the Primacy."1

The Catechism lists seven rites. These rites so listed: Latin, Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean,2 are actually families of liturgical expression. These rites are the descendants of the liturgical practices that originated in centers of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. Each will be discussed in turn.[/SIGN]

BYZANTINE. The largest of these eastern rites is the Byzantine. The Byzantine liturgy is based on liturgy developed by St. James for the Antiochaian church, but modified by St. Basil (329-379) and St. John Chrysostom (344-407). This liturgy is similar if not identical to the liturgy used by the Orthodox churches. After the schism between the churches in Rome and Constantinople in 1054, many particular churches remained separated from Rome. Over the years some of these churches came back into union. These churches after they returned to the fold have generally been treated as separate rites based on their particular location, even though they have similar if not identical liturgy. The churches using the Byzantine liturgy include the Albanian, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Hungarian, Italo-Albanian, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian.

mncuf.org/rites.htm

 

[Crumpy]

Alright, fine, maybe tradition does divide us (IDK, I’m no theologian), but the Catholic Church has the magisterium, and the Orthodox don’t. So you have Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. And the Catholic Church isn’t divided.

Every church has the Bible, tradition (essentially the way the Bible is interpreted), and authority – someone who makes the decisions, whether it is the leader of the church or the people in the pews. Every church does not necessarily claim that it has tradition and a magisterium, but, you have to recognize that they do, no matter what they call it.

The Holy Father is the symbol and proof of the unity of the Catholic Church. Any other church you mention adheres to some version of “everybody decides for themselves” at some time or place.

 

[Crumpy]

We are not divided in doctrine with the Orthodox. We divided mainly on the issue of the pope, and that is putting it simply.

For more info, search for the great schism of 1054.

yes, the pope and the dogmas that have been defined by the Pope since the schism of 1054.

 

[choliks]

Every church has the Bible, tradition (essentially the way the Bible is interpreted), and authority – someone who makes the decisions, whether it is the leader of the church or the people in the pews. Every church does not necessarily claim that it has tradition and a magisterium, but, you have to recognize that they do, no matter what they call it.

The Holy Father is the symbol and proof of the unity of the Catholic Church. Any other church you mention adheres to some version of “everybody decides for themselves” at some time or place.

Yes… but the key here is apostolic succession.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Last month I drove past a Byzantine Catholic Church. Is that a denomination of the Catholic Church? If not, why the designation as Byzantine?

It is a rite in the Catholic Church. There are no denominations within the Catholic Church, but different rites (Latin/Roman, Byzantine, Ukrainian, etc).

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Yes… but the key here is apostolic succession.

And which church is completely guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I can’t answer these questions… any ideas?

If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine? Does this not prove both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?
If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

From bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

It’s a false caparison: The Catholic Church is not divided (doctrinally) - thus the last sentence is the fallacy known as a strawman.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I can’t answer these questions… any ideas?

If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine? Does this not prove both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?
If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

From bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

(1) You might find this interesting: refutations to the so-called irrefutable questions.

(2) IMHO the argument you cite above against sola scriptura =SS] is weak and derivative. The issue of whether God chose SS or Scripture and Tradition in the Church =STC] as the means to hand on His word is a factual question. Skip for moment the fathers and the Ecumenical Councils which are irrefutably on the side of STC.

The New Testament authors, taken as a whole:
PORTRAY God’s word being transmitted by a process of scripture, tradition, and church;
ACKNOWLEDGE that the oral word (the Gospel preached orally by the apostles) is a sacred deposit/trust to be handed on by others orally as well as in writing;
ORDER us to follow unwritten traditions;
make no STATEMENT that all of the oral apostolic preaching was consigned to writing;
and give no explicit MANDATE and no self-referential statement making scripture the sole rule of faith thus abolishing the existing process of Scripture, tradition, and Church.

It is rationally impossible to argue that the data of Scripture and the Fathers and Councils support SS as the means God chose to hand on His word.

 

[bmonk]

I can’t answer these questions… any ideas?

***If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine? Does this not prove both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?

If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?***

From bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

There is a vast quantitative difference between the thousands of churches that rely on the personal illumination of each individual and the two churches that are divided on, let’s face it, somewhat peripheral issues–the authority of the Pope vis a vis other Bishops, and whether the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father or also from the Son. There is also a qualitative difference–how many churches have major differences from one another, disagreeing even on the Real Presence, or whether the Trinity is to be believed (Unitarians, among others).

The argument from Catholics vs. Orthodox against Tradition (and Magisterium) as sufficient may be weakened by their division–but it is still by far the best available means for determining truth.

On an individual level, the argument has even greater force. I may not agree with all the teachings of the Church, or may have difficulty accepting and living by some of them. However, am I sure enough of my own judgment and inspiration by the Spirit to set myself against billions of people, a community founded by Christ himself? Do I (literally) bet my life and hope of salvation on it? When I ask that question, I find that no, I am not so sure. I trust in the authority of the Church precisely because it is wiser and better guided than me alone.

 

[bmonk]

Another thought: Sola Scriptura disqualifies itself, since Scripture neither tells us what it includes, nor does it tell us that we should trust only the Scriptures.

Indeed, the Scriptures point to the Church under the Apostles as the only institution promised the Holy Spirit as a guide to the truth. That Church continues to exist: the Catholic Church under the Bishops.

So: the Scriptures point not to themselves, but to the Church as the best guide to truth.

 

[brumano]

I can’t answer these questions… any ideas?

I

From bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

It is not that we say that there is no such thing as personal illumination of The Holy Spirit or any valid reveallations that come forth exclusively through this channel, and we do not as counter-Catholics might think either conciously or mistakenly that Scripture is somehow depreciated by Sacred Tradition; not in the least because one primary task of Sacred Teaching is to provide the true understanding of The Scriptures in the whole of their context…We see Sacred Teaching or Sacred Tradition being established, where? In the Scriptures, and we see Scriptural understanding being established and provided in every age, where? In Sacred Tradition. Any doctrines that come under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church must pass Scriptural and Traditional tests. Sola Scriptura really invalidates itself as possibly being the exclusive vessel for all revealled truth; not because the Scriptures are inadequate but because we as individuals are inadequate; and woefully so at that, to do on our own all of what Christ has given His Church to do.

As far as the disparities and disagreements between the Roman and the Orthodox I do not think there are definitive doctrinal schisms existing which preclude reunion or reestablishment of full communion between us in time. There certainly are’nt doctrinal rifts like the Sola Scriptura Churches encounter yet tend to downplay such as on the " once saved always saved or not" question.

 

[John2007]

As an Eastern Orthodox, I think it is incorrect to to consider the Orthodox and Catholic churches as two denominations. I view them as one church that has been in schism for a millennium and is currently working toward full communion. The mutual excommunication was lifted in 1965 and confirmed by recent Popes and Ecumenical Patriarchs. The Orthodox and the Catholic churches share huge swaths of doctrine and liturgical practice.

A major area of debate currently is defining the what the role of the Pope would be in the churches of the east. Historically the Orthodox considered the Bishop of Rome to be the “first among equals,” which is different from the role the Pope has played in the west.

Many in the west see few barriers to restoration of full communion. The various Orthodox have longer lists of problems. There is going to be a Pan-orthodox council in the near future, the first in over a 1000 years. Restoring unity with the west is certain to be on the minds and probably the agendas of the participants.

John