Sola Scriptura . . .

[toaslan]

The definition of sola scriptura is:

Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith. (P)

Now, oral tradition is (keep this definition in mind) an infallible rule of faith and is distinct from written tradition. Take the proposition:

Oral tradition is an infallible rule of faith (Q)

Now if Q is true then P is false. That seems to be intuitive.

How do we prove Q? Well, we can show an example of an oral tradition. That is a sufficient condition but not a necessary one. We can show that there is an oral tradition that has been passed down.

How?

Well, 2 Thess 2:15. As long as we can show that oral tradition does exist, then P is shown to be false.

Randy, I’m working on this post, but not tracking 100%.
In the last paragraph cited above, you say:
A. *How do we prove Q? Well, we can show an example of an oral tradition. *
B That is a sufficient condition but not a necessary one.
C.*We can show that there is an oral tradition that has been passed down. *

I don’t get how B results or leads into C. I don’t see why A is not the end of your cited reasoning. I don’t see that A is different from C.

The rest of this package, by the way, rocks! LOVE DEFINITIONS. Without a willingness to define, hot air aboundeth…

 

[Philthy]

I’d rather it be:

John wrote, Polycarp copied, Irenaeus copied because the latest popes made some historical rules of their own just like others before them did, too.

Ah, yes kujo - it would be great if what you proposed were true; but it isnt even close. Only half of the gospels even claim to be written by Apostles (ie eye witness). The gospel of Luke doesnt even pretend to be “inspired” or copied from an apostle. Read Luke’s introduction - it is very matter-of-fact, historical documentation of events - and from secondary sources at that. In addition, Christ never hinted that any Scripture was forthcoming. He didnt write a word and he didnt command anyone else to do so.
Even the writings that we do have contain enough to tell you that the people writing them had no idea that what they were writing was Scripture. Paul sometimes says things which “are a command of the Lord” yet includes things which are “not a command of the Lord” but are his opinion. In Paul’s 2nd letter to Timothy he even says “I am writing so that **IF **I should be delayed you know how to behave in the church of the living God…” No hint that this is the “word of God” for all believers for all time…His writing it down isnt even plan A - plan A is to arrive in person and speak the word. Plan B is writing it down…
I could go on and on, but my final point will be this: you are to be defending SS by virtue of ITS merits, not by virtue of attacking Catholic tradition.

 

[kujo313]

The Apostles did not teach by writing, generally.
Possibly four Apostles wrote short accounts of Christs life.
Sts. Peter and Paul wrote internal Church letters.
The Apostle then tells you that the world could not hold all the books that could be written. And also tells you to hold fast to what you have learned either by word of mouth or by letter.
Most Apostolic teaching was oral, by word of mouth.
So the best people to ask, after the Apostles, are the disciples and friends of the Apostles, the Bishops, who certainly wrote about the Church.
St. Polycarp was a Bishop, you can be sure he copied everything from his friend the Apostle St. John. Likewise St. Irenaeus, who met St Polycarp, was a Bishop also and was taught in the same way I’m sure as all potential Catholic Bishops were.

The BEST thing, then, is to GO BACK to what was WRITTEN by the Apostles and not disputed. That, my friend, is the Bible. Undisputed for thousands of years and proven time and time again to be true.

 

[HailMary]

The BEST thing, then, is to GO BACK to what was WRITTEN by the Apostles and not disputed. That, my friend, is the Bible. Undisputed for thousands of years and proven time and time again to be true.

Yeah, who put together the bible? Just curious on your thoughts.

 

[toaslan]

you are to be defending SS by virtue of ITS merits, not by virtue of attacking Catholic tradition.

 

[toaslan]

The BEST thing, then, is to GO BACK to what was WRITTEN by the Apostles and not disputed. That, my friend, is the Bible. Undisputed for thousands of years and proven time and time again to be true.

What is undisputed?

 

[MrS]

The BEST thing, then, is to GO BACK to what was WRITTEN by the Apostles and not disputed. That, my friend, is the Bible. Undisputed for thousands of years and proven time and time again to be true.

and may I again suggest we start with the beloved disciple, John, with a slow and honest reading of John 6 in the context of which it is written.

Only the Catholic Church has the Real Presence… and the protestants who perfer to quote St. Paul, the Catholic Apostle to the Gentiles, … would do well to read his warning about receiving the Eucharist improperly… hardly a concern if it is “just” symbolic.

The Apostles… gotta love 'em

PS: remove all chapter and verse numbers… and try to read it like the love letter that it is.
.

 

[I_Leatherman]

The BEST thing, then, is to GO BACK to what was WRITTEN by the Apostles and not disputed. That, my friend, is the Bible. Undisputed for thousands of years and proven time and time again to be true.

The Apostles did not write everything down - that is what they said, not me.

The Apostles commission was to minister to the single Church Christ built.

Their role, or command, or commission, was not to write a book;

it was to teach His Church.

Which they did by word of mouth, mostly.

Those the Apostles personally taught, by word of mouth, wrote it down.

We still have that stuff they wrote down.

And its fine, it agrees with the stuff the Apostles wrote - because it came from them.

Is any of this penetrating the ivory dome.

 

[HailMary]

:
Only the Catholic Church has the Real Presence

Lets not exclude our Orthodox brethren

 

[MrS]

Lets not exclude our Orthodox brethren

opps… me bad…

 

[down_under]

The BEST thing, then, is to GO BACK to what was WRITTEN by the Apostles and not disputed. That, my friend, is the Bible. Undisputed for thousands of years and proven time and time again to be true.

What you meant to say was “that would be the bible disputed for thousands of years and we still are not sure exactly what it means.” Becasue without an athortative explaination of what it means it has always been an argument. It has often been said that to be catholic you have to walk and chew gum at the same time. That is because protestants like to divide things scripture OR oral tradition. catholics have to put up with both. Both and. Not either or.

 

[NotWorthy]

  			Originally Posted by **kujo313** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2148171#post2148171) 				
  		*The BEST thing, then, is to GO BACK to what was WRITTEN by the Apostles and not disputed. That, my friend, is the Bible. Undisputed for thousands of years and proven time and time again to be true.*

But you see, Catholic do go back to the WRITTEN WORD. And the Written Words tells Catholics to take it to the Church, the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth!!!

 

[kujo313]

This is the kind of statement people make who are uneducated about Catholicism. There are no contradictions. If there appear to be, it is because the reader either does not understand the scripture correctly, or does not understand the teaching correctly. It also reveals a protestant mindset. It is not appropriate to throw out the traditions that were handed down to us from the Apostles and make “new ones” just because they don’t seem to make sense to outsiders.

For example: NONE of the Apostles said that any one of them was infallible. Yet, infallible men pick a leader.

Let God be true but every man a liar. (Romans 3:4)
Let God’s Word be true, too.

This kind of statement is made by a person who does not understand the teaching of the church on celibacy of priests.

What is so wrong about a married priest? Or a married Bishop?

1 Tim 3:2
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife”

Do you not agree that it is a full time calling to be a husband and father? Do you not agree that it is a full time calling to be a pastor? Why do you think Paul wrote “it is better for everyone to be as I am”? Why do you think that jesus taught that those who could receive celibacy should do so?

There is a far cry from fasting for spiritual enrichment, and forbidding foods. Do you not believe in fasting, either? If you think the Catholic fasting practices are strict, you should study the Eastern Orthodox! Jesus said that when the bridegroom was gone, His disciples would fast. We do this in preparation for His glorious return. All foods are received with thanksgiving, even those from which we may abstain on a certain day or time of the year.

John the Baptist fasted on locusts and wild honey.

Maybe it is better that the truth is not according to how you would “rather it be”. This is a protestant attitude, and reveals a rebellious attitude toward Christ and His teachings. Jesus commanded us to come to Him, to believe, and to obey Him. How you would “rather it be” is really quite irrelevant. The fact is that the Apostles and their disciples taught the truth of Christ in each generation that followed. These teachings have been handed down to us according to the order that Jesus established. You are free to reject this order, and pursue how you would “rather it be”, but that will not change the truth.

It seems that you have received quite a bit of erroneous teaching about Catholicism. Did this happen because you refuse to study the practices of the early church? Is that a result of Sola Scriptura?

Nope, it’s a “been there, done that”. Spent half of my life in the religion and studied it. Each generation should’ve studied those of Jesus and the Apostles instead of the previous generation’s interruptation of it.

 

[kujo313]

But you see, Catholic do go back to the WRITTEN WORD. And the Written Words tells Catholics to take it to the Church, the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth!!!

I’m sure that the WRITTEN WORD says more than “take it to the Church…”
Pope JPII acknowledges evolution yet the WORD says “In the beginning, God CREATED…”

The RCC says that Mary did not die but rather ascended into Heaven (sometime in the 1950’s)…
Yet the WORD says that And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (John 3:13) Say! Wasn’t that the SAME John that took Mary as his “mother”? He didn’t mention Mary going anywhere.]

Funny how the RCC would use words like honor, homage, adoration, honor, venerate, revere, adore, glorify, idolize, and adulate when it comes to Mary. All of those words are synonyms of “worship”.

Matthew 2:11
And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him (Jesus, not Mary).
Matthew 4:10
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Revelation 22:8-9
And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: **worship God. **

“honor, homage, adoration, honor, venerate, revere, adore, glorify, idolize, and adulate” God and God alone.

 

[I_Leatherman]

I’m sure that the WRITTEN WORD says more than “take it to the Church…”
Pope JPII acknowledges evolution yet the WORD says “In the beginning, God CREATED…”

The RCC says that Mary did not die but rather ascended into Heaven (sometime in the 1950’s)…
Yet the WORD says that And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (John 3:13) Say! Wasn’t that the SAME John that took Mary as his “mother”? He didn’t mention Mary going anywhere.]

Funny how the RCC would use words like honor, homage, adoration, honor, venerate, revere, adore, glorify, idolize, and adulate when it comes to Mary. All of those words are synonyms of “worship”.

Matthew 2:11
And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him (Jesus, not Mary).
Matthew 4:10
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Revelation 22:8-9
And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: **worship God. **

“honor, homage, adoration, honor, venerate, revere, adore, glorify, idolize, and adulate” God and God alone.

Mary did not ascend into heaven…

It always surprises me whe non-Cs say they can worship by accident. It must make them miserable not knowing from one moment to the next if they are worshipping stuff, people, animals, plants, christmas trees etc.

St. John said he fell down with the intention of worshipping…
but some protesters say worshipping is accidental and St. John would not have known if he was still worshipping the angel or if he had ever started.

Catholicism knows when it is worshipping and when it is honouring.

 

[down_under]

Nope, it’s a “been there, done that”. Spent half of my life in the religion and studied it. Each generation should’ve studied those of Jesus and the Apostles instead of the previous generation’s interruptation of it.

wow you totally missed the point huh. each generation did go back to jesus and the apostles. They have kept that teaching pure all this time. Even martin luther admitted the great debt he owed the catholic church just so he could hold the bible. If you did do a complete study of the fathers you would probably be quite suprised how catholic they were.

 

[down_under]

I’m sure that the WRITTEN WORD says more than “take it to the Church…”
Pope JPII acknowledges evolution yet the WORD says “In the beginning, God CREATED…”

The RCC says that Mary did not die but rather ascended into Heaven (sometime in the 1950’s)…
Yet the WORD says that And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (John 3:13) Say! Wasn’t that the SAME John that took Mary as his “mother”? He didn’t mention Mary going anywhere.]

Funny how the RCC would use words like honor, homage, adoration, honor, venerate, revere, adore, glorify, idolize, and adulate when it comes to Mary. All of those words are synonyms of “worship”.

Matthew 2:11
And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him (Jesus, not Mary).
Matthew 4:10
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Revelation 22:8-9
And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: **worship God. **

“honor, homage, adoration, honor, venerate, revere, adore, glorify, idolize, and adulate” God and God alone.

again all of these things have been debated longer than there were portestants even the whole mary contraversy started about 300. and that was the first record we have. but it is all tape dancing around the point. with AN athoritative interperator you cannot get to those things. you love to mud sling. show us where the bible is an athoritative interperator of itself. I would like to see that. Show us any other athoritatve interperator of the bible that can keep us all an the same page. other wise you have your passages and I have mine and who knows who is right. You sure cant tell me because according to you I am always right because I can interperate it myself.

 

[guanophore]

The RCC says that Mary did not die but rather ascended into Heaven (sometime in the 1950’s)…
Yet the WORD says that And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (John 3:13) Say! Wasn’t that the SAME John that took Mary as his “mother”? He didn’t mention Mary going anywhere.]

The RCC does NOT say this, kujo. It appears that your studies were not very effective. Mary did not ascend into heaven, and the church does not teach that, and never has.

Funny how the RCC would use words like  honor, homage, adoration,  honor, venerate, revere, adore, glorify, idolize, and adulate when it comes to Mary.  All of those words are synonyms of "worship".

Perhaps your studies of Catholicism were not effective because you are poorly educated in general? In addition to the fact that these words are NOT all synonyms, the church never uses the word idolize unless talking about committing a sin.

"honor, homage, adoration,  honor, venerate, revere, adore, glorify, idolize, and adulate" God and God alone.

I am glad that you want to give priority to God, kujo. One wonders why you are here on the forum.

 

[kujo313]

Mary did not ascend into heaven…

It always surprises me whe non-Cs say they can worship by accident. It must make them miserable not knowing from one moment to the next if they are worshipping stuff, people, animals, plants, christmas trees etc.

St. John said he fell down with the intention of worshipping…
but some protesters say worshipping is accidental and St. John would not have known if he was still worshipping the angel or if he had ever started.

Catholicism knows when it is worshipping and when it is honouring.

Wow! Guess you don’t know the rosary at all. Vaguely remember but I KNOW it mentions the ascension.
“Accidental”? I didn’t say that. But when you give Mary titles like “queen of heaven” and “mother of god”, then you pray the rosary and wear scapulars because she supposedly showed up on earth somewhere and said so, I’d say that’s “worship”.

I guess you also never seen or heard of anybody who “worships” a tv or movie star or a singer. They have lots of pictures and magazines of their favorite star. They can name all of their movies or songs and when they was released. They go to concerts or sightings to get an autograph or even just a glimpse. Guess you are too young to have seen what the crowds were like at Beatles concerts: girls passing out and crying uncontrollably, following them around the country and even the world.

Then…

There’s the statues and the paintings. There’s a collection of rosaries and scapulars. There’s the prayer books.

I can go on and on.

Even though Jesus said “come onto Me” and the disciples did so; even though Peter and James healed a lame man, he didn’t worship THEM; even though John the Baptist had disciples, he told them to follow Jesus and they did and never followed John again…

Jesus said “behold your mother” and NONE of the letters of Peter, Paul, John or James ever mentions Mary being so important and significant.
Could it be that something so great in the whole universe was forgotten to be written by 1st century authors? HOW could the “queen” be TOLD to somebody and yet not mentioned by Jesus, Himself?

Could it be because He said,

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)
And…
“These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." (John 14:25-26)

Note: only ONE Mediator is even mentioned in the Gospels: Jesus Christ. People walked up to Him directly then as we can today. We don’t have to approach anybody as if He’s got a secretary or anything.

 

[kujo313]

The RCC does NOT say this, kujo. It appears that your studies were not very effective. Mary did not ascend into heaven, and the church does not teach that, and never has.

Perhaps your studies of Catholicism were not effective because you are poorly educated in general? In addition to the fact that these words are NOT all synonyms, the church never uses the word idolize unless talking about committing a sin.

I am glad that you want to give priority to God, kujo. One wonders why you are here on the forum.

Actually, I was invited here a while ago by somebody, then I was insulted by the same individual.