…
catholic.com/projects/wolves_in_sheeps_clothing.asp … do apologists [at] CA maintain a double-standard. I can just as easily ascribe all those errors to the failure to abide by Sola Scriptura. … did you consider that Mormons, JWs, Mooneys, and the former Jim Jones Peoples Temple also reject Sola Scriptura. If we are to judge people by the company they keep, the door swings both ways … that’s a bit off topic, I was only pointing out that the WCoF and the Official teaching of CA if not the Catholic Church itself have virtually identical principles for scripture interpretation. …
You are arguing, that Catholics have a lack of knowledge of the Bible as a consequence of failure to interpret scripture, in accord with scripture, that this rule of consistency, of unity across scriptures has been violated to such an extent, that a lack of knowledge about the Bible has become the result?
I listen to K-LOVE, KLVS out of Sacramento. There was a period of time, that even those among Protestants: ministers at a number of local churches in the area where I live, in addition to broadcasts by this nationwide Christian Radio network cited, that most people lacked knowledge of their Bible. I neither state, nor imply that you say, all errors cited in the article by Karl Keating are attributed to a lack of adherence to “Sola Scriptura”. I am saying, this is impossible to do. The problem of ignorance, with respect to scripture is inclusive both of Catholics, and of Protestants.
The other religious, or irreligious groups that you cite are unable to be qualified to substantiate any claim, that rejection of Sola Scriptura alone is sufficient to warrant clear interpretation of scripture–clear interpretation of scripture is the work of the Catholic Church; it is to the Catholic Church that interpretation of scripture has been entrusted, in accord with the Holy Spirit; the Descent, which founded the Church at Pentecost.
You are fallacious to reason, that revelation ended with St. John. Revelation ended with Jesus’ ministry begun at the Wedding at Cana; though, revelation of Jesus’ life, scripture is ceaseless to the extent, that there is much to learn. You know; I suspect, that Scripture does claim–I believe in the Gospel of John: all things pertaining to Christ have remained unwritten, with the explanation, that there is too vast a body of knowledge pertaining to his life, to be written; though it may have been a feat more easily accomplished with a computer keyboard, and Dovorak keyboard as well.
You look to us, to provide you with a scriptural basis to support, that interpretation of scripture must be done not only in accord with scripture, but also with tradition–St. Paul wrote in one or more places, that traditions must be maintained. I will locate the book(s), chapter(s), and verse(s) sometime this week, or the next.
It should, perhaps, be sufficient to say, scripture alone is only “sufficient”, neither exceptional, nor exclusive for reproof, for correction, for teaching. Nowhere in scripture, to my knowledge informed both by Protestant ministers, and Catholic sources is scripture elevated to the same level as the Trinity–the Trinity alone must be the source of all interpretation. Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ’s life; though Christ’s life certainly is well enough established in testimonies both of records belonging to the Roman Empire of Jesus’ day, that concern prosecution against him, hence the Crucifixion, in addition to census data, that would be inclusive of all his living family members, etc.
There is a remarkable comparison between scripture interpreted by scripture, and Sola Scriptura; though, Martin Luther added a word, physically, to the Bible in a particular chapter, and verse, that prior to his schism–did not exist, but this insertion of a word “alone” violated, which number of scriptures with respect to altering scripture? Whatever his intent either known to few, or unknown to all; this would invalidate his claim of “Sola Scriptura”–an accepted doctrine unfounded in scripture, or do you cite that book, chapter, and verse, which he inserted a word “alone” to substantiate your claim, if it is your claim, of “Sola Scriptura”?
I am short on time, and apologuise for awkward, verbose, sentences. Ask for clarification, should you need it, thank you!
