Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[Cathoholic]

St. Paul

whoever, therefore, eats the bread in an unworthy manner will be guilty of
profaning the body AND blood of the Lord

.

The Catholic Church

whoever, therefore, eats the bread in an unworthy manner will be guilty of
profaning the body AND blood of the Lord

.

Cathoholic

whoever, therefore, eats the bread in an unworthy manner will be guilty of
profaning the body AND blood of the Lord

.

Medwigel

that’s my issue, teaching that the bread alone suffices as Christ Body and Blood is wrong teaching

 

[medwigel]

(Notice if you receive ONLY one species, the “bread” you profane the body AND blood of the Lord.

Which means if you receive ONLY “the bread”, you ARE receiving BOTH the body AND blood of the Lord).

I missed this. Where does it mention only the bread?

 

[Cathoholic]

medwigel . . .

why not just take the cup in place of the bread?

Sometimes we do.

For example a sick person will sometimes just be brought consecrated wine from the priest.

Babies receiving the Eucharist (in the Eastern Catholic Rites) sometimes will have the priest put a small spoon into the consecrated wine and touch it to the babies tongue too.

Gluten-intolerant people will sometimes ask the priest before Mass, to consecrate a gluten-free host.

But when they are away visiting at another parish, they MAY choose to receive from ONLY the cup. If they DO, they STILL receive ALL of Jesus–Body, Blood, soul and Divinity.

They still receive Jesus’ Body AND Blood.

Again. When they receive “only” the wine, they too are receiving ALL of Jesus (body AND blood, soul and Divinity).

 

[Cathoholic]

I missed this. Where does it mention only the bread?

I’ll try to go into more detail tomorrow night. (We have a men’s Bible study tomorrow evening and I won’t be able to reply in much detail until after then. As I said, I may do a brief android post but I may not too.)

 

[semper_catholicus]

Also in Timothy it talks about about the CHURCH as the pillar of truth.

 

[BartholomewB]

I interpret it as a concession based on how Jesus refers to it in the NT.

As you say, the idea of divorce as a “concession” is not found in the OT. The Mosaic Law on divorce is found mainly in Deuteronomy, chapters 22 to 24. Divorce is permitted in some cases but not in others (e.g. Deut 22:29), and in cases where it is permitted, there is a correct procedure to be followed (e.g. Deut.24:1). However, there is no suggestion that divorce is wrong in itself or ought to be avoided.

This brings us back to the point I was making initially about the passages in the Gospels where Jesus and others quote from the Law and the Prophets (“it is written”, “Have you not read what God has said”, etc.). In some of these passages the speaker’s purpose is to adduce the OT text as evidence to support the truth of what he is teaching. But there are other passages in which Jesus quotes a rule laid down in the Scriptures in order to change it. The two passages about divorce in Matthew demonstrate this clearly (Matt 5:32 and 19:9). Jesus is explicitly enacting an amendment to the Law of Moses: “It has been said … but I am telling you …” in the first passage, with its echo in the later passage, “Moses allowed you … but I say …”

In the two passages I’m quoting here, Jesus is clearly teaching that Moses was wrong to allow husbands to divorce their wives, subject only to certain exceptions and requiring them always to follow a correct procedure. In your own words, Jesus is arguing that divorce was never God’s will and that Moses was only making a “concession.” But Moses never said it was a concession. Moses never said that divorce, in itself, was contrary to the will of God.

Conclusion.―Jesus teaches that Mosaic Law governing divorce was only a “concession” to the weakness of the people and was never in accordance with God’s will. He is stating this as his reason for changing the law. Under Jesus’ new law, divorce is prohibited in all cases with the sole exception of porneia.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

As a former Baptist, I never interpreted that verse to mean sola scriptura.

I don’t know how anyone could actually. If taken literally, it means from the actual mouth of God. Not some piece of paper.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

And then we can read in John’s Gospel that many other things took place that could not fit in all the books in the world, or Paul telling us to not forsake the teachings of the Apostles (which are often not written in scripture

I’ve always wondered if John would have wrote that if was writing in the Present Day.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

There are unconfirmed reports that, in the early days of the Protestant Reformation, some preachers had the inside walls of their churches inscribed with their own version of the opening words of John’s Gospel, “In principio erat sermo”―In the beginning was the sermon.

That would not be far off the mark

The Greek word for “Word” is logos

logos
log’-os
From G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

There are 330 occurences in the Bible;
100 of these are not translated as “Word”
here are words used
cause
communication
sayings
thing
talk
reckoneth
matter
account
fame
rumour
matter
treatise
intent
speaker
mouth
speech
work
utterance
preaching
concerning
shew
doctrine
reason

 

[Gorgias]

that’s my issue, teaching that the bread alone suffices as Christ Body and Blood is wrong teaching because the source from which the sacrament was created shows the consumption of bread AND wine.

Are you so certain? Isn’t it described, in places in Scripture, as “the breaking of the bread”? If so – that is, if it’s described in a way that doesn’t include the explicit mention of the wine – then how can you assert that it explicitly calls for consumption of both elements?

 

[jlhargus]

Sometimes some non-Catholics attempt to see Matthew 4:4 as teaching sola Scriptura.

The Bible also says:

[2Thes2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.] Unless you can find a scripture telling us All oral Tradition is now found in scripture you are not following bible alone but a tradition of men.

Apostolic Tradition and Scripture are The Word the one revelation given to the apostles.

[1Thes2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.]

[2Tm2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.]

[2 Tm1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.]

[Mt18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.]

Many Protestants contradict their own authority Sola Scripture. Going outside scripture inventing an oral tradition of men, teaching all oral Tradition is in scripture. Yet there is no scripture saying all Tradition is now in the Bible, the burden of proof is on them. We can find several scripture verses telling us to hold Tradition.

 

[medwigel]

Are you so certain? Isn’t it described, in places in Scripture, as “the breaking of the bread”? If so – that is, if it’s described in a way that doesn’t include the explicit mention of the wine – then how can you assert that it explicitly calls for consumption of both elements?

Please show me where it speaks of breaking the bread without then mentioning the wine.

 

[medwigel]

There is nowhere in this scripture does Paul say we should hold the leadership of men above the scripture.
All I can see is Paul imploring the believers to follow those things which he has taught them, whether it was from his preaching (words) or his epistles (the letters which he sent them).
These are things he taught them about God’s will for their life.

 

[medwigel]

Paul telling us to not forsake the teachings of the Apostles (which are often not written in scripture

So where do they get their foundation for their teachings?

 

[medwigel]

So many of you are affirming the over all authority of the Catholic church, even above scripture, but how do you justify the authority when it goes horribly wrong.
What do you say to the thousands of young boys and girls who were abused by priest worldwide? The practice of moving pedophile priest from one parish to another was sanctioned by the church and the church went through great lengths to cover it up.
So if the Catholic church is the ultimate purveyor of God’s will, even above scripture, then what do you say to these abused souls about God’s will for them, because the institution that called it’s self all knowing of the things of God facilitated their pain.
Then there is the incident of unwed mothers in Ireland in the 1950s and 1960s who where sent to convents and then had their babies sold to American couples without the mother’s consent. The church disregarded and stripped the rights of these mothers away and basically did what they thought was best in selling their children. So tell me, where is God’s will in this situation?
If the Church is infallible and considered the ultimate word, and not the scripture, then how do you explain these wrongs?

This is why you can’t rely on the leadership of men. You should rely on the God’s word to guide our actions and thoughts. God’s word is the only reliable source on what we should do; if what you are doing doesn’t line up with the word of God then it is sin. The Bible is the only litmus test for believers so that we can know right from wrong.

 

[Augustine3]

The authority of the church is certainly not above scripture but the faithful guide and protector of scripture.

The Church may err in disciplinary actions. People within the church may err by their misconduct etc. but the Church does not err with it’s teaching on faith and morals. We have Christ’s guarantee on that “and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it”

God bless,

 

[medwigel]

but the Church does not err with it’s teaching on faith and morals.

But the Church did err because it was Church policy that made it possible to transfer these priests from parish to parish. This cover up of the priests’ actions didn’t just happen in the US, it happened over 10+ countries around the world- where were the Church’s faith and morals then?
It was the Church who looked down on these women because they sinned and stripped them of their parental rights.
These were not isolated incidents, they were coordinated events sanctioned by the Church on a wide scale. So were where the Church’s morals?
Why did the Church forsake it’s role as the protector of these vulnerable people? Matthew 25:40 "And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me’.

 

[Augustine3]

These are not errors on faith and morals. These are errors in disciplinary actions and cowardly cover ups. We are all sinners “let he who has no sin cast the first stone”. To condemn the Catholic Church who was with Christ from the beginning, is to condemn Christ himself.

I’m not sure what you meant by “It was the Church who looked down on these women because they sinned and stripped them of their parental rights”. Can you be a little more specific?

 

[jakeg1984]

medwigel

I see that you have offered some examples of abuses in the Catholic church or basically examples of sins by men. The leaders of the Catholic church do not have the “authority” to sin and never have they said so. If you think this to be the case I would invite you to show me a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic church that grants this authority or at least a dogmatic teaching that re-defines these sins as no longer being considered sins. I assure you that you will not find one.

If you were to reformulate your argument then you could, for example, apply your test to those who believe in “sola scriptura”. The test would go like this: First, ascertain who within a populous adhere to “sola scriptura.” Once you know who adheres to this teaching you’d then examine which crimes or sins they have committed. Once you know of the sins committed you could say people that adhere to “sola scriptura” are corrupt because they have sins, therefore sola scriptura must not be the right path; OR EVEN since they committed horrible sins and they only read scripture then the scripture must be wrong. I would say that your litmus test for truth here is without merit.

I agree that you should “rely on God’s word to guide our actions and thoughts.” The sacred dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church are the Word of God so use them to guide your actions and thoughts. The sins of Priests and their embarrassed leaders are not dogmatic teachings and are not the Word of God so don’t form your conscience on the basis that their sins are not sins because they are Catholic. Don’t base your faith on the belief that Priests are perfect sinless humans. Again, show me a Catholic teaching on Faith and Morals that says to observe your priest and determine what is sin by his actions alone.

You are trying to use the sins of man to discredit the teachings of the Catholic Church but then you’d have to make the argument that the Apostles were sinless. Do you believe the Apostles were sinless?

 

[jakeg1984]

Additionally, it is important to make a distinction here about what the Church holds to be sacred protected truth. The Catholic Church must make a declaration that has specific criterion that need to be present for a teaching to be dogmatic and inerrant and it does this with grave care and precision. This process is guided wholly by the Holly Spirit. To illustrate what I’m saying here is that if the Pope were to declare in an interview that you should eat an apple every day to stay healthy, this does not make it a sin now to not eat an apple every day. Without the proper criterion and guidance of the holy spirit a dogmatic infallible teaching is not made.

To bring this full circle, the sins of priests and the sins of their leaders are not a teaching on faith and morals of the Magisterium (teaching office) of the Catholic Church.