Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[guanophore]

innovations and aberrations from the gospel that somehow became “sacred tradition.”

Like the Scriptures, the Word of God taught by the Apostles was Sacred as soon as it was formed. Nothing can “become” Sacred Tradition. The once for all divine deposit of faith was complete at the death of the last Apostle. Nothing can be added or subtracted.

He gave us his word through the Holy Spirit as delivered by the apostles, and recorded in scripture for all posterity. That written word is the means by which the Church is protected because it provides the objective revelation provided through the Holy Spirit to provide instruction, rebuke, etc.

What you are saying here, Sean77, is confirming what I have stated. You deny that Jesus was able to protect His word in the Church, where He placed it. You deny that there is any Word within the Church that is not in Scripture.

The issue is when you place fallible man as the authority over God’s word.

I don’t think this is an issue. I think we are all in agreement that this is outside of God’s order. Where we don’t agree is that the Holy Spirit is the soul of the Church, and Jesus is her Head. these divine elements protect the Word of God at work in the Church, not the human elements.

We believe that oral tradition which is in accord with the Word of God as passed down through the scriptures. In other words, the pastoral office is supposed to be held accountable for its teaching, and the objective means by which we do so is by examining scripture. Unfortunately, your ecclesiology removes this protection.

Not at all! Scripture is profitable for all these things. It is just not the only profitable Source, since the Word of God is also alive and well in the Sacred Tradition, which can equally be used to hold teaching accountable. You will learn this when you study more about your family history.

What we do not accept is reading and applying the scriptures apart from the Sacred tradition that pro

 

[guanophore]

duced them. This is because there are as many interpretations as there are belly buttons.

Jerome for example disagreed with the Council of Carthage regarding the apocryphal works. Even up to the Council of Trent the issue was hotly debated. The persons most knowledgeable of Hebrew and the apocryphal texts such as Cardinal Jimenez and Cardinal Cajetan disagreed with the position adopted by Trent as to the inspiration of the apocryphal works.

This is just more evidence that the Holy Spirit reigns in the Church. All these scholars accepted the inclusion of the works, though they personally disagreed. All of them are now rejoicing that the original Hebrew copies of them were found with the rest of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1946. The Holy Spirit knew the decision would be vinidcated!

these works were largely included in the Roman canon because there was no other basis for some traditions that had come into broad acceptance such as purgatory. It is anachronistic in the highest degree to try to make the argument that you are making.

If what you were saying were true, then I would agree. But Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint, which authenticates the Deuterocanon by itself. The Church had used them since the Apostolic times for that reason. There were no bibles produced before Trent that did not include these books.

But Catholics don’t squeeze doctrines out of verses of text, as our separated brethren must do, being separated from Apostolic teaching as you are. We received the faith, whole and entire, before a word of the NT was ever written, and before any of the councils that listed the OT canon were held.

This is the means by which Ireneaus for example refuted the teachings of Valentinus (his works are filled with quotes demonstrating the departure of the gnostics from the faith as provided in scripture)

Do you honestly believe that Sacred Tradition was not used alongside Sacred Scripture to refute heretics? Oh, that’s right, I forgot you don’t recognize Sacred Tradition for what it is. You have mistaken it for traditions of men! What an odd source to use to refute heresy! Wonder why the early fathers did that?

 

[guanophore]

And again, we see that though this word was originally spoken orally, the words were enscripturated, relatively soon after they were written which became the authoritative means of transmitting that word as we see in further writings and by Christ himself. They didn’t need the Council of Trent in 1546 to tell them that.

Some of the message was enscripturated, for sure, and of course Scripture is authorative, just as is the Word planted in the Church by the Apostles. No, we did not need the council of Trent to tell us any of those things we had already believed as Catholics. But dogmatic pronouncements are made when heresies are running rampant. The Christians did not need the Council of Nicea to declare the Trinity, either.

Again, you are using a red herring for what Sola Scriptura is, and in the process elevating the authority of the church over and above the authority of Christ.

On the contrary, the authority of the Church IS the authority of Christ! “He who hears you, hears Me”. It was not people that elevated the Church this way, it was Christ. Jesus knew there was no table of contents for the NT. That is why He sent the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into “all truth”.

The problem is that the shepherds have not always remained steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles.

I agree that this is a problem, but the Gospel is not sullied because Judas did not embrace it. What you are saying here is that what Jesus taught was changed by Judas’ lack of faith. I think even you can see that this is not logical.

If this were true, why were there so many heretical splinter groups breaking from the Catholic faith, many times led by clergy?

I think Scripture has been very clear on this. There are those who depart so that it can be made more clear who is genuine. They left, because they were not “of” the Apostles.

How did the abuses which the Protestants who raised valid points creep into the practice of the Church, even to the point of being defended by the Pope, occur?

Scripture is also clear about this. There will always be sinners, and satan will try to strike the shepherd to scatter the sheep. But abuses are still not Jesus teaching, nor can they change the immutable revelation of God.\

Infallible means infallible.

Clearly not, as you have repeatedly demonstrated, you do not understand what the Church teaches about infallibility at all. It has nothing to do with impeccability. If men were not sinners who miss the mark, the Church would not need the gift of infallibility!

Not when we decide they were or were not speaking ex cathedra anachronistically years later.

This is further evidence that you don’t understand the teaching. Would you consider having a discussion about what the Church actually teaches, rather than your misunderstanding of it?

 

[Cathoholic]

Sean77 . . .

We don’t have to vest infallibility to anything other than God.

.

Tell that to Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and others.

Rather the facts are . . . God can and frequently DOES work through men.

I’ll put up a smattering of Scriptures on this later.

The fact is, God can and DOES in certain instances work through men in an infallible manner too.

Scripture is only one example.
The Canon also is an example outside of Scripture.

(That is one of the whole presuppositions of your argument Sean77. An aspect of it that I concur with by the way.)

 

[Cathoholic]

I linked to a post of mine quoting Vatican II.

I cited (among other things) . . . .

This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

(Emphasis mine here)

.

Sean77. Your reply was . . .

The problem is that the shepherds have not always remained steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles.

That is absolutely true Sean77. No disagreement there.

But the Church ALSO teaches that these PROTECTED teachings, are only given preserved under various circumstances.

If I were to absolutize your argument Sean77, we would be forced to jettison Sacred Scripture.

Why?

Well one reason is St. Peter “taught” that he was NOT a disciple of Christ.

He even went further “teaching” he didn’t even “know” Jesus.

LUKE 22:54-57 54 Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest’s house. Peter followed at a distance; 55 and when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among them. 56 Then a maid, seeing him as he sat in the light and gazing at him, said, “This man also was with him.” 57 But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.”

.

Using YOUR motif, someone COULD say . . .

The problem is that the shepherds have not always remained steadfast in the teaching of Christ. Therefore since these guys wrote Scripture, we MUST REJECT Scripture.

.

Now you might respond by saying . . .

"Well you don’t understand Cathoholic. The Holy Spirit breathed out His word In Scripture in spite of “these guys” and their "false teaching."

And I would say . . .“Bingo!”

Now extend that concept to oral Tradition and the official Teaching Magisterium (the Pope and the Bishops united to him, teaching under certain circumstances, or it can be the Pope independent of the Bishops in other circumstances).***

.

.

*** This admitedly is oversimplified to make a point. Later if you want we can differentiate between “inspiration” and “infallability”" and get all the way there. But the principle of God working in and through sinful and sometimes “wrong” men (sometimes “wrong” but never “wrong” under the circumstances I alluded to) is still valid.

 

[Cathoholic]

Sean77 . . .

Infallible means infallible. Not some of the time. Not when we decide they were or were not speaking ex cathedra anachronistically years later. All of the time.

.

An atheist or someone else will take your principle Sean77, and say . . .

Inspired means inspired. Not some of the time. Not when we decide they were or were not writing Scripture years later. All of the time.

 

[Sean77]

What law was that?

That would be all mosaic prohibitions against mediums and diviners, and is further expounded upon in Isaiah 8:19.

The saints in heaven are described as interceding for justice for those who are on earth and being persecuted.

You are incorrect on this point. The word saint in Revelation applies to living believers going through the persecution. The prayers are being offered up before the throne of God by the four creatures and the 24 elders which are heavenly beings rather than human souls. This is also the normative usage of saint in both OT and NT

While it is true that the passage describes Saul violating his own royal edict, it is quite clear that God allowed Samuel to respond to Saul, and to give Saul a prophetic message. Saul is not “dead” but alive and well, and knows about current events on earth.

Again, you are using an aberration from God’s law to declare God’s law null and void without any explicit statement from scripture to support this 180. David committed adultery with Bathsheba as well, should we consider this as normative for doing away with the fifth commandment?

So, you don’t think the Apostles were really there at the transfiguration, as the Gospel records? How much of Scripture must you ignore to deny the Catholic position?

Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Or are your assuming that the apostles began to pray to Moses and Elijah?

There is an endless treasury of merit in Christ, as I am sure you know.

I agree that the grace that we have in Christ is limitless. However, this is a far cry from the medieval doctrine of the treasury of merit, the two are not even remotely comparable. And nowhere in the gospel is it ever hinted that one might purchase the grace of Christ however you care to define an indulgence.

You have made it clear, Sean77, that you do not understand what Sacred tradition IS, so how can you claim it was not jettisoned? Sacred Tradition is the Word of God, living in the Church. It cannot “submit” to that which it IS.

No sir. Functionally, sacred tradition has trumped the word of God in some cases as we see above, becoming its master rather than serving it. Again, I fully support those traditions that do not impose on the gospel. I reject those that have done so.

 

[Sean77]

An atheist or someone else will take your principle Sean77, and say . . .

Inspired means inspired. Not some of the time. Not when we decide they were or were not writing Scripture years later. All of the time.

Clearly you do not understand the difference in definitions between inspired and infallible.

 

[Cathoholic]

Sean77.

You did not address any of the points here so far.

I’d like your comments regarding this.

 

[Sean77]

To which post are you referring? As you can see there are multiple people posting. I do not feel an obligation to read or respond to all of them, not really why sure you feel that you are entitled to any more of my time than anyone else. Unless of course you would like to appoint a secretary, in which case, feel free to make an appointment.

 

[Cathoholic]

Sean77. You said concerning the Catholic Church. . .

The problem is that the shepherds have not always remained steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles.

And I agreed that Bishops at times have NOT remained “steadfast”.

I gave an example of a Bishop who did not always remain “steadfast”–St. Peter.

I said . . .

But the Church ALSO teaches that these PROTECTED teachings, are only given preserved under various circumstances.
.
If I were to absolutize your argument Sean77, we would be forced to jettison Sacred Scripture.
.
Why?
.
Well one reason is St. Peter “taught” that he was NOT a disciple of Christ.
.
He even went further “teaching” he didn’t even “know” Jesus.

I then backed up my assertion with a Scripture passage.

.

LUKE 22:54-57 54 Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest’s house. Peter followed at a distance; 55 and when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among them. 56 Then a maid, seeing him as he sat in the light and gazing at him, said, “This man also was with him.” 57 But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.”

.

St. Peter did not remain “steadfast” here Sean77.

Keeping all this in mind . . .

Do you think this disqualifies St. Peter from the Holy Spirit using him for writing Scripture?

Or do you think St. Peter can still be used by the Holy Spirit under “certain circumstances” to be not only infallible, but even inspired?

 

[Cathoholic]

Sean77 . . .

To which post are you referring?

Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura Sacred Scripture

Sean77 . . . We don’t have to vest infallibility to anything other than God. . Tell that to Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and others. Rather the facts are . . . God can and frequently DOES work through men. I’ll put up a smattering of Scriptures on this later. The fact is, God can and DOES in certain instances work through men in an infallible manner too. Scripture is only one example. The Canon also is an example outside of Scripture. (That is one of the whole presuppositions of…

You said . . .

We don’t have to vest infallibility to anything other than God.

What about God working in and through people?

Don’t we need to “vest infallibility” in those cases too?

 

[Sean77]

Sean77 . . . We don’t have to vest infallibility to anything other than God. . Tell that to Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and others. Rather the facts are . . . God can and frequently DOES work through men. I’ll put up a smattering of Scriptures on this later. The fact is, God can and DOES in certain instances work through men in an infallible manner too. Scripture is only one example. The Canon also is an example outside of Scripture. (That is one of the whole presuppositions of…

Absolutely agree. As you can tell by all of my previous posts I have been quite adamant in affirming the infallibility of God, and I have affirmed that the Holy Spirit works through men. That has never been the issue. However, that does not mean that I have to extend that to the persons who wrote the scriptures or to their office. Certainly Paul did not invest Peter or his office with infallibility when he rebuked him for his conduct toward the Gentile believers.

 

[Cathoholic]

Sean77.

Certainly Paul did not invest Peter or his office with infallibility when he rebuked him for his conduct toward the Gentile believers.

THIS is what I am trying to get at Sean77.

St. Peter’s “conduct” is in a sense irrelevant with regards to his TEACHING.

Now I agree, it is NOT irrelevant in teaching by example.

But the point remains. There are certain “conditions” where the standard for this teaching must be met.

And it’s not some deep dark retrospective secret. If you want, you can start a thread on it and I will go over these conditions with you. You can find a lot of them in the Vatican I documents. There are others.

Regarding St. Peter and St. Paul opposing him to his face over St. Peter’s conduct . . .

There are two things I want you to take away from that Galatians passage concerning St. Peter and one, concerning St. Paul.

.

St. Peter
Galatians 2 shows clearly this opposition was in regards to CONDUCT (not teaching).
Galatians 2 actually AFFIRMS St. Peter’s TEACHING.

St. Paul
St. Paul carried out IN PRINCIPLE, the very same CONDUCT. (Acts 16:1-3)

Here is the evidence . . . .

Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura Sacred Scripture

This from excerpts of our local Catholic men’s Bible Group (with minor changes to adapt to this post) The verse says: . GALATIANS 2:11 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. . The people opposed to Papal infallibility WISHED it said: . NOT GALATIANS 2:11 (Phantom verse) 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he officially taught wrong doctrine. . Actually St. Peter MAY have been right here (but I…

 

[Sean77]

St. Peter’s “conduct” is in a sense irrelevant with regards to his TEACHING.

Completely disagree. For a church that relies so heavily on symbols, surely you should understand that one’s conduct and teaching go hand-in-hand, which is precisely why Paul lost his mind when Peter pulled away from the Gentile believers when the Judaizers meet up with him. This is also why conservative cardinals are up in arms when the Pope makes statements that seem to intimate that he is willing to allow for participation in communion for those who are divorced and remarried. I actually side with the Pope on that topic; however, the Cardinals raise a very valid point that teaching and practice that are out of whack is essentially teaching a new doctrine.

 

[Cathoholic]

Cathoholic . . .

St. Peter’s “conduct” is in a sense irrelevant with regards to his TEACHING.

(Bold added)

.

Sean77 . . .

Completely disagree.

OK Sean77.

So are you saying St. Peter’s denial of Christ in Luke 22:54-57 impacts Peter so much, that 1st Peter and 2nd Peter in the Bible need to be REJECTED??

Or are you saying in THAT SENSE, St. Peter’s conduct is irrelevant?

Because it can only be one or the other.

.

.

Did you get a chance to read this below yet?

.

St. Peter
Galatians 2 shows clearly this opposition was in regards to CONDUCT (not teaching).
Galatians 2 actually AFFIRMS St. Peter’s TEACHING.

St. Paul
St. Paul carried out IN PRINCIPLE, the very same CONDUCT. (Acts 16:1-3)

Here is the evidence . . . .

Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura Sacred Scripture

This from excerpts of our local Catholic men’s Bible Group (with minor changes to adapt to this post) The verse says: . GALATIANS 2:11 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. . The people opposed to Papal infallibility WISHED it said: . NOT GALATIANS 2:11 (Phantom verse) 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he officially taught wrong doctrine. . Actually St. Peter MAY have been right here (but I…

 

[graciew]

. Certainly Paul did not invest Peter or his office with infallibility when he rebuked him for his conduct toward the Gentile believers.

Paul addressed Peter as Cephas.
And it was over a discipline.

 

[guanophore]

That would be all mosaic prohibitions against mediums and diviners, and is further expounded upon in Isaiah 8:19.

This is an argument based upon a false premise. Christians were never under the Law of Moses, even before the “second and third centuries”.

The second false premise is that communication with members of the Body of Christ who have gone on to their heavenly reward is some kind of divination.

You are incorrect on this point. The word saint in Revelation applies to living believers going through the persecution.

The word “saint” in the NT is used to apply to all believers.

I am interested to see how you can explain away this verse:

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; Rev. 6: 9

It seems very clear that the souls under the altar who are interceding for those on earth are those who have already been martyred.

10 they cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?” 11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been. Rev. 6

I do agree, they are “living believers”. They are members of the Church triumphant. I also agree that there are prayers being offered by the other creatures before the throne of God (angels). Perhaps you can show me where the 24 elders are in this passage?

knows about current events on earth.

No. I am using an example in scripture of how God allowed a saint to communicate with a person on earth. I have made no claim that using a medium or divination is acceptable. The explicit statement from Scripture is that Samuel’s rest was disturbed by Saul, that Samuel is alive and conscious of events on earth, and that Samuel gives Saul an accurate prophesy about what is to come.

Whether Saul attempted an inappropriate method or not, it is clear that the saints can interact with those on earth, and are not “dead”.

David committed adultery with Bathsheba as well, should we consider this as normative for doing away with the fifth commandment?

No one is claiming this. That makes it a strawman argument. What the consequences of the adultery and murder show us is the doctrine of temporal punishment for sins. God forgave David’s sins, but David still had to pay the penance of the loss of his son.

This is the principle upon which Purgatory is based. Persons whose sins are forgiven still have temporal consequences for their sins.

 

[guanophore]

Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Or are your assuming that the apostles began to pray to Moses and Elijah?

You have claimed that there is no scriptural support for the doctrine of praying to saints. I have given you three examples from Scripture, which you are trying very hard to ignore.

If the Apostles did pray to Moses and Elijah, how is this a problem? If it is ok for Jesus to have a chat with them, why should the Apostles not?

The point is that the saints are alive and well, and able to interact with people here, and pray for us.

And nowhere in the gospel is it ever hinted that one might purchase the grace of Christ however you care to define an indulgence.

I agree. This is the sin of simony, and is an abuse. This is why the Council of Trent discontinued monetary donations to the Church for the purpose of an indulgence. They did not want any appearance of such an abuse to occur.

No sir. Functionally, sacred tradition has trumped the word of God in some cases as we see above, becoming its master rather than serving it.

Your argument has no foundation, since you have demonstrated that you do not understand what Sacred Tradition IS. No claim you can make has any substance, since you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the doctrine.

Sacred Tradition is the Word of God active in the Church. It cannot “trump” Scripture because they both come from God. They are two inseparable strands of one divine revelation.

Again, I fully support those traditions that do not impose on the gospel. I reject those that have done so.

You have demonstrated that you cannot distinguish between human traditions and Sacred traditions, so how could you possibly know what can be supported? A blind man will not only fall into a pit, but lead one who follows him into it as well.

I do not feel an obligation to read or respond to all of them

Yet you feel entitled to come here, at our expense, and pander falsehoods about our faith?

not really why sure you feel that you are entitled to any more of my time than anyone else

we are entitled by virtue of the calumny you have brought. If you can’t defend your statements, don’t make them!

However, that does not mean that I have to extend that to the persons who wrote the scriptures or to their office.

Again you demonstrate your ignorance of the gift of infallibility.

 

[guanophore]

Certainly Paul did not invest Peter or his office with infallibility when he rebuked him for his conduct toward the Gentile believers.

On the contrary, it was the infallible teaching of Peter upon which he based the confrontation.

But you have confused infallibility with impeccability. You are bearing false witness against your brethren, Sean77.

For a church that relies so heavily on symbols, surely you should understand that one’s conduct and teaching go hand-in-hand

Of course they should, and when they don’t, the hypocrite should be confronted. Infallibility does not mean impeccability.

which is precisely why Paul lost his mind when Peter pulled away from the Gentile believers when the Judaizers meet up with him.

Paul did not “lose his mind”. He logically and assertively confronted Peter to his face about his hypocrisy. This is according to the commandment of Christ, that, if anyone has something against his brother, he should go to his brother and confront him.

Paul addressed Peter as Cephas.
And it was over a discipline.

Good point. He did recognize Peter as the rock upon which Christ founded the Church.

But I do not believe this was a discipline. What Peter was doing was inconsistent with his own teaching about the Gentiles. He confronted him about his hypocrisy - not acting according to the Truth he had espoused.