Sola Scriptura

[TheTruth]

It’s Catholic tradition because it is apostolic tradition, right?

Hardly…it’s catholic tradition because that is what is best for the church…the church continues to this day to make tradition, tradition that it views as more important than scripture. This has nothing to do with apostolic tradition and everything to do with control of the flock, and self-preservation.

It’s not an interpretation decided upon in the 1500’s. It’s understandings of our faith from the very first Christians.

Seems that the catholics met in the 1500s to ‘determine the doctrines of the church’…so you see, some things are an interpretation decided upon in the 1500s.

The evidence is clear, the traditions of the catholic church are written by the church, to protect the church’s interest. They were created by MEN not by god or by Jesus, but by the cathiolic church (the church has given themselves the authority to do this, but god never did).

 

[p90]

fulloftruth:

I would like to apologize to Brian for minimizing my statement and over emphasizing his. I also have noticed that his interpretation of our “Praying to Saints” is somehwat askew. We do not pray to Saints and Mary the way we Pray to God. Any “Prayers” to Mary or the Saints are simply requests for thier prayers in heaven.

Perhaps these affected Brian’s conclusions:

“With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin. Let them fly with utter confidence to this most sweet Mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts and fears. Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race” (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).

“How grateful and magnificent a spectacle to see in the cities, and towns, and villages, on land and sea—wherever the Catholic faith has penetrated—many hundreds of thousands of pious people uniting their praises and prayers with one voice and heart at every moment of the day, saluting Mary, invoking Mary, hoping everything through Mary” (Pope Leo XIII, Octobri Mense).

~Matt

 

[The_Augustinian]

Now, hold on. We’re jumping all over the place here. What started as a simple thread on the Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura has been hijacked into an all-out assault on Catholic doctrine and dogma which is, honestly speaking, really disorganized. Honestly, now, some of the anti-Catholic arguments are extremely old, and silly. For example, the claim that Catholic doctrine was thought up in the 16th century. To that I say, what do we make of the Summa Theologica? And St. Thomas Aquinas copiously quoted from the Church Fathers. So obviously it goes back further than that.

As for the recent comments on the Virgin Mary, if any of you turn to the Catechism, it clearly shows the Christocentric and totally subordinate role of the Virgin Mother, who was saved by a pure act of God’s grace. Surely you Protestants believe that people get saved by grace, correct? And there’s nothing wrong with being exalted over other creatures, or do you think that everyone will be equal in Heaven?

As for the doctrine of Saints: we base this on three propositions:

1. The Saints in Heaven can hear our prayers.
2. The Saints in Heaven pray for us to God.
3. Prayer to the Saints is not worship.

What do you think we’ll be doing in Heaven? Bounce about on clouds with harps? No, we will still be working for God, just like God has us working for Him in our current state. Is it not logical then to assume that it is fine to pray to the Saints?

Now, let’s all have some time to breathe. This forum is getting out of control. The Protestants came in the 16th century. They have the burden of proof. Let’s hear their best arguments.

The Augustinian

 

[hlgomez]

BRIAN,

YOU HAVEN’T ANSWERED ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE EUCHARIST YET. I’M WAITING FOR YOUR RESPONSE.

I also answered you about your demand for just one Catholic doctrine that will share the same meaning with the early Fathers. And I explained to you about the nature of the holy Eucharist–the most primitive of all Catholic Doctrine. I would like to ask you on this particular doctrine, which sad to say you held before as Catholic, but abandoned them. Do you find the fathers, the Bible, and the CC’s teaching anything but oppsing with each other in their interpretation?

PIO

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Ohhhhhhhh, I get it, so Brian is a heretic and no one’s told me yet. Don’t get me wrong, a heretic is one who is baptized and has been given the faith of the apostles, and then freely rejected it. Aren’t we supposed to not argue with heretics?

 

[Pax]

Brian,

Thanks for replying to my post concerning “Moses Seat.” You spent some time on your response as you have with the many other posts in this thread. I do find some problems, however, that I would like you to consider.

As I pointed out early on, you argue logically but wrongly. Let me demonstrate this if I can based on the Moses Seat issue. You made a mild concession to some recognition of authority, and then launched into the transgressions of the Pharisees which we are all aware of. Yes, Jesus upbraids them vigorously and there is no denying that fact. Their sinfullness, however, in no way negated the authority they had, and Jesus would never have mentioned their authority if it did not have significance.

If it were not for a guiding authority the Jews would have been all over the place. We see it from the absence of Moses when he climbed Mt.Sinai and returned to find the people worshiping the golden calf. It took Moses by the grace and power of God to turn them from this idolatry. Korah’s rebellion is another example of the people’s rejection of the authority God placed in Moses and Aaron. Interestingly enough, we see in the Book of Jude people that are compared to those in Korah’s rebellion. These NT folks are also rejecting authority.

Jesus left a lasting authority and a shepherd for His Church. It could be no other way. The bible testifies to it and the bulk of the Church Fathers testify to it. Sure you can find something in the bible and you can find something in the Church Fathers to raise a question or doubt from which to mount a logical argument, but that flies in the face of the overwhelming truth that has been presented to you. Seriously, if you are angry with the church, or have a strong prejudice against the Church you will always, and I do mean “always,” find logical ways to argue against the truth of her teachings. If we set our minds in a predisposition formed by anger we can never see the truth and we will always argue wrongly.

Your arguments, however powerful they may seem to you, are merely interpretations. The Church Fathers were not always in complete agreement with one another, and it would be ridiculous to assume that they would be. Instead, when a heresy arose the ECF’s did their best to understand and refute them. Overtime, the Church would ultimately settle the dispute. Simply research and consider all of the great heresies, and you will see what I’m talking about.

Lastly, I would like to point out that there are no errors in St. Jerome’s translation of the bible. His original Greek text had the correct terms in Genesis 3:15. Copies of his work in the Latin did have a copy error.

 

[RBushlow]

cazayoux:

It’s Catholic tradition because it is apostolic tradition, right?
It’s not an interpretation decided upon in the 1500’s. It’s understandings of our faith from the very first Christians.

Exactly X-z-aktley!

 

[brianberean]

Peg:

brianberean, you did not answer the question about why you left the Catholic Church. I would love to hear your story!

Peg,
I’ve told my “story” on Catholic boards before and have found it to be an annoying experience. Unless I spend an inordinate amount of time trying to articulate every reason in precisely the right way, I get the same old, “You just didn’t understand” type accusations and questions to which I always have to spend another inordinant amount of time giving the same “yes I did understand” type responses which then lead to spending another inordinate amount of time defending my views in the same old back and forth discussions that we’ve all seen before.

My short story: I couldn’t keep ignoring the, IMO, overwhelming Scriptural and historical evidence against the “infallible” claims of Catholicism.

Thank you for understanding.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

fulloftruth:

I would like to apologize to Brian for minimizing my statement and over emphasizing his.

Accepted.

Any “Prayers” to Mary or the Saints are simply requests for thier prayers in heaven.

See Matt’s response below.

I always shake my head when I see Catholics make the claim you just did. Do you just not know the truth about the matter? There are so many examples from history that make your claim nonsensical. Besides what Matt wrote:

“…Queen of the world … I worship thee, great Queen, and give thee thanks for the many favors thou hast bestowed on me in the past … **most of all do I thank thee for having saved me from hell ** … I promise ever in the future to serve thee… In thee I put all my trust, all my hope of salvation… And since thou hast so much power with God, deliver me from all temptations, or at least obtain for me the grace ever to overcome them…” (Prayer of St. Alphonse Liguori: 3 yrs indulgence, Raccolta, 342) With Mary to Jesus, by Fr. Theodore Zaremba. O.F.M. (Franciscan Printery, 1954) Nihil Obstat, M. Grajewski, OFM; Imprimi Potest, Fr. T. Kalinowski, OFM; Nihil Obstat, JA Schulien, STD; Imprimatur, A.G. Meyer, Archiepiscopus Milwaukiensis, Aug 16, 1954

Brian

 

[brianberean]

brianberean:

Accepted.

See Matt’s response below.

I always shake my head when I see Catholics make the claim you just did. Do you just not know the truth about the matter? There are so many examples from history that make your claim nonsensical. Besides what Matt wrote:

“…Queen of the world … I worship thee, great Queen, and give thee thanks for the many favors thou hast bestowed on me in the past … **most of all do I thank thee for having saved me from hell ** … I promise ever in the future to serve thee… In thee I put all my trust, all my hope of salvation… And since thou hast so much power with God, deliver me from all temptations, or at least obtain for me the grace ever to overcome them…” (Prayer of St. Alphonse Liguori: 3 yrs indulgence, Raccolta, 342) With Mary to Jesus, by Fr. Theodore Zaremba. O.F.M. (Franciscan Printery, 1954) Nihil Obstat, M. Grajewski, OFM; Imprimi Potest, Fr. T. Kalinowski, OFM; Nihil Obstat, JA Schulien, STD; Imprimatur, A.G. Meyer, Archiepiscopus Milwaukiensis, Aug 16, 1954

Brian

 

[brianberean]

hlgomez:

BRIAN,

YOU HAVEN’T ANSWERED ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE EUCHARIST YET. I’M WAITING FOR YOUR RESPONSE.

PIO

I also answered you about your demand for just one Catholic doctrine that will share the same meaning with the early Fathers.

No need to shout. Please show me where I made such a “demand”.

Brian

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

brianberean:

The Word of God was made available to His people in different ways throughout Scripture. Oral revelation, when God spoke directly to Adam, Abraham, Moses, etc. Written revelaiton, when Moses, guided by God, wrote the law. Oral revelation through other various prophets throughout OT history. Written revelation, when prophets, guided by God wrote Scripture. Oral revelation through the Words of Jesus Christ in the NT, etc. Written revelation when Apostles and a few others, guided by God, wrote Scripture. There were times of oral revelation and times when no oral revelation was available. During these times God’s enScripturated Word was the only access to God’s Word available. Therefore, Scripture was their sole infallible authority.

Oral “revelation” is very different from a God-lead person speaking authoritatively for God. There has never been a time when such a person/people did not exist therefore there has never been a time when scripture was a sole authority.

We are now living in “normal times” where oral revelation has ceased. (In the NT era beleivers also have the Holy Spirit indweldt in them.)

Revelation has nothing to do with authority. Catholics don’t make any claims about revelation. It’s not germain to the topic of authority.

Therefore, as demonstrated throughout Scripture, Scripture is our only access to God’s infallible Word. Sola Scriptura basically means that Scripture is our sole infallible authority.

You’ve only stated that it’s demonstrated throughout scripture without actually citing any scripture. Can you be more specific about where the sole authority of scripture is demonstrated through scripture?

To be continued. I have to go help my wife … Apparently me being on the computer for several hours on my off days and not getting anything done that I was supposed to do does not make her happy… Pray for me

Uh oh! Talk to ya later!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[brianberean]

Pax:

Brian,

Thanks for replying to my post concerning “Moses Seat.” You spent some time on your response as you have with the many other posts in this thread. I do find some problems, however, that I would like you to consider.

As I pointed out early on, you argue logically but wrongly. Let me demonstrate this if I can based on the Moses Seat issue. You made a mild concession to some recognition of authority, and then launched into the transgressions of the Pharisees which we are all aware of. Yes, Jesus upbraids them vigorously and there is no denying that fact. Their sinfullness, however, in no way negated the authority they had, and Jesus would never have mentioned their authority if it did not have significance.

The Pharisees had some sort of authority and it was significant. Granted.

This, however, does not logically translate to support of any of the claims the Catholic Church makes for itself. The Pharisees were wrong on matters of faith and morals. If you want to say that Matt 23 sets a president for authority in the NT era church, fine. If you want to say it sets a president for an “infallible” hierarchy that has binding control over Christendom, then not even close.

If it were not for a guiding authority the Jews would have been all over the place. We see it from the absence of Moses when he climbed Mt.Sinai and returned to find the people worshiping the golden calf. It took Moses by the grace and power of God to turn them from this idolatry. Korah’s rebellion is another example of the people’s rejection of the authority God placed in Moses and Aaron. Interestingly enough, we see in the Book of Jude people that are compared to those in Korah’s rebellion. These NT folks are also rejecting authority.

Are you comparing the authority God gave Moses to the authority of the Pharisees? That they each had “some sort” of authority is the only commonality. Moses was given many special gifts, including a special authority and their is not evidence that the Pharisees were given anything close to the same kind of authority.

Jesus left a lasting authority and a shepherd for His Church. It could be no other way. The bible testifies to it and the bulk of the Church Fathers testify to it.

It could be another way. The bible does not testify to it, and neither do the Church Fathers (as a consensus) testify to any kind of “infallible” or “universally jurisdictional” authority of the pope or church of Rome.

Sure you can find something in the bible and you can find something in the Church Fathers to raise a question or doubt from which to mount a logical argument, but that flies in the face of the overwhelming truth that has been presented to you.

I would turn this around and make the same statement towards you. The part about the “overwhelming truth that has been presented to you” would refer to your short visit to NTRMin.

Seriously, if you are angry with the church, or have a strong prejudice against the Church you will always, and I do mean “always,” find logical ways to argue against the truth of her teachings. If we set our minds in a predisposition formed by anger we can never see the truth and we will always argue wrongly.

Here we go again. If anyone examines the evidence and comes to a contradictary conclusion as the faithful Catholics on this board their motives and integrity are questioned.

Lastly, I would like to point out that there are no errors in St. Jerome’s translation of the bible. His original Greek text had the correct terms in Genesis 3:15. Copies of his work in the Latin did have a copy error.

So the pope quoted a “copy error” in support of his “infallible” IC pronouncement?

Brian

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

brianberean:

So if he screwed up his statistics regarding Catholicism, your still going to accept his conclusions regarding Protestantism uncritically?

Not uncritically. I’m aware of the problems with his research. I was simply using it as an example of where I got the “tens of thousands” figure from, which is what you asked for. He’s not alone in his 34,000 figure. Even if there are 2 that’s 2 too many.

In Christ,
Nancy

]

 

[brianberean]

Catholic4aReasn:

Oral “revelation” is very different from a God-lead person speaking authoritatively for God. There has never been a time when such a person/people did not exist therefore there has never been a time when scripture was a sole authority.

Outside of times of special oral revelation (prophets) when did a “God-lead person speaking authoritatively for God” ever possess the gift of inspired infallibility?

You’ve only stated that it’s demonstrated throughout scripture without actually citing any scripture. Can you be more specific about where the sole authority of scripture is demonstrated through scripture?

You asked for a verse. I asked if demonstration was okay. You said okay and then responded by asking for a verse. Oy…

Summary of my point: Outside of special times of oral and written revelation God’s OT covenant people didn’t have any “infallible” access to God’s Word save Scripture. That’s basically where sola Scriptura followers claim we are today. This is not a special time of oral or written revelation and the only “infallible” access we have to God’s Word is Scripture. During “normal” times in the OT and NT eras God’s people had access to God ordained authority, but not the “infallible” authority that only God’s Word possess.

Brian

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

brianberean:

What I can be sure of is that nobody can produce one tradition taught by Paul to the church of Thessalonica that has been passed down to today’s RCC that is not in Scripture. You claim this verse is proof of oral traditions around today being equal with Scripture, but you can’t produce a single oral tradition around today Paul is allegedly referring to.

No, I made no such claim. I didn’t specify Paul or the church at Thessolonica. I’m not sure why you’ve raised that particular issue.

I think you may misunderstand what the Church is referring to when she speaks of “Tradition”. Generally speaking “Tradition” is the full deposit of faith, everything that has been revealed by God to be true. Therefore, strictly speaking, what is in scripture is itself part of Tradition. You seem to be under the impression that some teachings are scripture while some other, completely separate teachings are Tradition. Perhaps that’s why we’re not getting very far in this conversation.

1st response:
You said its in Scripture. Show me something that’s not in Scripture. You disqualified your own answer.

I addressed this in my response.

2nd response:
Didache:
4:19 In church thou shalt confess thy transgressions, and shalt not betake thyself to prayer with an evil conscience.

The Catholic Church’s tradition is that one must confess their sins to a priest (to my knowledge it doesn’t have to be in church).

I addressed this in my response.

3rd response:
There’s no evidence that the Didache came from the church of Thessalonica.

You didn’t ask for evidence from the church of Thessalonica.

Scripture says Scripture is God-breathed. It doesn’t say this about anything else that still exists today.

Scripture doesn’t claim to be the only thing that is God breathed. That is a claim that you are personally making for it. Nor does scripture claim for itself any particular level that is reserved for it alone. God’s word, whether oral or written, is on the same level.

Scripture doesn’t have to specifically say that something is God-breathed in order for it to be so. The canon of Scripture is God- breathed yet scripture doesn’t say so.

In special times of oral revelation like when the OT prophets spoke as guided by God, or when Jesus taught orally, or when Paul taught orally, what they taught was equal to Scripture. But, as the Catholic Church teaches we do not live in a time of oral revelation.

It has nothing to do with any new revelation but rather with teaching authority.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

brianberean:

Outside of times of special oral revelation (prophets) when did a “God-lead person speaking authoritatively for God” ever possess the gift of inspired infallibility?

“Inspired” doesn’t not describe papal infallibility. It is a negative protection, not a positive. I think you may misunderstand what papal infallibility is and is not.

There has never been a time since Abraham when God did not provide someone who could speak authoritatively for Him.

Outside of special times of oral and written revelation God’s OT covenant people didn’t have any “infallible” access to God’s Word save Scripture.

God has ALWAYS provided his people with someone who could speak authoritatively for Him. There has NEVER been a time when God’s people were expected to rely on Scripture alone.

That’s basically where sola Scriptura followers claim we are today. This is not a special time of oral or written revelation and the only “infallible” access we have to God’s Word is Scripture.

With each individual deciding for himself what it does and does not mean. This is where sola Scriptura falls apart. Sola Scripturists would have us believe that God gave us an infallible book with no way of knowing, infallibley, what it means. If you can’t be infallibley certain what it means what good is an infallible book? Catholics believe that, as always, God has provided a voice in the world, an audible voice who speaks authoritatively for him. The conflicting and contradictory interpretations of scripture disproves sola Scriptura like nothing else can. An infallible book is useless if it’s interpretation is relative to the believer.

During “normal” times in the OT and NT eras God’s people had access to God ordained authority, but not the “infallible” authority that only God’s Word possess.

What do you believe this God-ordained authority had the authority to do?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

brianberean:

Accepted.

See Matt’s response below.

I always shake my head when I see Catholics make the claim you just did. Do you just not know the truth about the matter? There are so many examples from history that make your claim nonsensical. Besides what Matt wrote:

“…Queen of the world … I worship thee, great Queen, and give thee thanks for the many favors thou hast bestowed on me in the past … **most of all do I thank thee for having saved me from hell **… I promise ever in the future to serve thee… In thee I put all my trust, all my hope of salvation… And since thou hast so much power with God, deliver me from all temptations, or at least obtain for me the grace ever to overcome them…” (Prayer of St. Alphonse Liguori: 3 yrs indulgence, Raccolta, 342) With Mary to Jesus, by Fr. Theodore Zaremba. O.F.M. (Franciscan Printery, 1954) Nihil Obstat, M. Grajewski, OFM; Imprimi Potest, Fr. T. Kalinowski, OFM; Nihil Obstat, JA Schulien, STD; Imprimatur, A.G. Meyer, Archiepiscopus Milwaukiensis, Aug 16, 1954

Brian

I’m pretty sure we were talking about the common person and not old, poetic prayers. Wasn’t this about “Catholics”, as a whole, praying to Mary? That’s what I was referring to anyway.

Were there flowery, poetic prayers written in days of old? Sure. I’m pretty sure that’s not what one means when one speaks of “Catholics” praying to Mary.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

brianberean:

I always shake my head when I see Catholics make the claim you just did. Do you just not know the truth about the matter?

There’s a whole lotta head-shakin’ goin’ on!! I always shake my head when non -Catholics fancy themselves better informed about Catholicism than the Catholics with whom they are having discussions.

Those poor misinformed Catholics. Don’t they have any idea that some people, a really long time ago, have written some really flowery prayers about Mary that seem, to me, to go overboard and so, therefore, ALL Catholics without exception pray to Mary in the same way they pray to God, even without knowing it?

It’s quite a leap from a relatively few flowery, poetic prayers to a claim that when the average Catholic “prays to” Mary he is not asking her to pray for him.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Jehu13]

**Scripture says Scripture is God-breathed. It doesn’t say this about anything else that still exists today.

Brian**undefined

So if we are to use your theory that Scripture is inspired because it says it is then :

1. Do you believe that the Koran and Book of Mormon are inspired because both of those Books say they are inspired. Is that how we know what scripture is?