Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura? Part II

[Church_Militant]

You have it backwards. Tradition must be interpreted in light of Scripture.

Where does the Bible say that? I don’t think you can offer it.

So far as I can tell… Old Scholar says that and then tells everyone else that that is what the Bible says. I guess hoping that we are dumb enough not to check him.

 

[Canto]

You mean all those “chapter-and-verse” labels in the Bible were not in the original sacred scriptures that the Apostles read to themselves as they first wrote sacred scripture!

It was not until the early part of the second millennium AD that the Church added the numbers to make it easier to study, reference etc. And some say us Catholics are or at least were anti Bible. People read scripture not seperated from the Magesterium or Tradition.

As has been pointed out The Church and not the Bible is the pillar of truth.

By the way do we no what God breathed scriptures are yet and how to define?

 

[onenow1]

Hi,OS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Scholar
You have it backwards. Tradition must be interpreted in light of Scripture.
Qoute= OneNow1. No I think you have it backwards OS.

Note: 2 Timothy 3​

1 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress.
2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,
3 inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good,
4 treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
5 holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people.
6 For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses,
7 who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.
8 As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;
9 but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.
10 Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness,
11 my persecutions, my sufferings, what befell me at Antioch, at Ico’nium, and at Lystra, what persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me.
12 Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,
13 while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

VS: 8 Jannes and Jambres from TRADITION !
VS: 17 Does not rule out TRADITION !

OS I would pay particular attention to VS. 5 denying the power of the church Christ estsblished.

Scripture and tradition right in front of your eyes.

Peace OneNow1

 

[qui_est_ce]

Maybe we should have a Sola Scriptura forum – or at least sticky all the SS threads at the top of the Apologetics forum.
Peace,
Dante

Off topic here, but what is the purpose of a sticky? I have seen them, but they look like regular threads.

 

[Tomster]

**Well if we want to believe the early church fathers, the ones who really started the church, they all tell us that if it can’t be proved with Scripture, then it is false. In the other thread (#1) I listed all the early fathers that commented on Tradition.

So why would anyone believe it if it can’t be found in Scripture???**

The Early Church Fathers starting the church??? Really??? Where did that come from?

 

[Tomster]

SS does not rule out or do away with the ECF’s or tradition but would reject what you refer to as “Sacred Tradition” if by that you mean that “Sacred Traditions” is infallible. The reformers studied the ECF’s as much as anyone else and also held tightly to SS.

SS, at it’s most basic roots says that scripture is the sole infallible rule, not that there aren’t other rules such as creeds but that scripture is all we have left that is infallible.

As I just posted on another thread, Tradition enjoys greater independence than Scripture. For the credibility of Tradition and the truth of doctrines therein contained can be determined by infallible judgment independently of Scripture, i.e., the Canon of the Bible, once you grant that the successors of Peter and the Apostles enjoys the protection of the Holy Spirit. Holy Scripture in all its parts cannot be known as a source of revelation without the witness of Tradition, and therefore depends on it. I, again, repeat, it is a source of never failing wonder to Catholics that so many Protestants cannot understand this.

 

[onenow1]

HI,All
You know what’s really funny Jesus himsef promoted tradition.
The church Jesus started promoted the bible, not the other way around !
Matthew 28​

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

PeaceOneNow1

 

[Ignatius]

Well if we want to believe the early church fathers, the ones who really started the church . . .

Actually, it is Jesus Christ who started the Church. And, as pointed out several times already, The Church preceeded the writing of the Gospels and other New Testament Scripture. The Church existed for many decades before the start of the written New Testament Scriptures. The Gospels are integral part of Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is the means of correct interpretation of Holy Scripture and without Sacred Tradition, you will almost certainly misinterpret the Scriptures.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Off topic here, but what is the purpose of a sticky? I have seen them, but they look like regular threads.

They are, with one difference: they are permanently “stuck” to the top of the list of threads. Whereas normal threads drop down the list as fewer people read and respond to them, stickies remain at the top. They are generally used to announce important information or provide quick access to common questions or issues – hence the idea for Sola Scriptura stickies.

Peace,
Dante

 

[sodak]

**Irenæus was a great man and you know he also appealed to Scripture when confronting heretics. It was his authority to combat heretics with.

In addition, he said that if Tradition could not be supported by Scripture, it was false… Great man…Too bad he didn’t live when Rome took over the church!**

Actually, your logic is completely backward. Scripture came from Tradition, not the other way around. Anyway, I’m glad your finally capitalizing it…

 

[sodak]

In a manner of speaking, you should read the history of your church and you will see when Rome took over. You can also see by the dogmas and doctrines how Rome’s influence helped create the false dogmas so widely used by the RCC.

Watch your step. This is a Catholic web site, you attack our Church, you’ll get the boot. You have been on the offensive in almost every post, I see no attempt to learn on your part.

I always find it amazing the arrogance displayed by you and others when you think that you can uncover truths that are missed by 2000 years of very, very knowledgeabe historians and theologians who dedicate their lives to Scripture. Yeah…Right…

 

[Old_Scholar]

Watch your step. This is a Catholic web site, you attack our Church, you’ll get the boot. You have been on the offensive in almost every post, I see no attempt to learn on your part.

I always find it amazing the arrogance displayed by you and others when you think that you can uncover truths that are missed by 2000 years of very, very knowledgeabe historians and theologians who dedicate their lives to Scripture. Yeah…Right…

I’m not attackint your church. I am just trying to find out why you believe such things as you about the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, the immaculate comception of Mary, Purgatory and the Papacy when none of those things are taught in Scriptures. Is it because some of the early church fathers told you to???

 

[Dauphin]

Darnit! I meant to vote no! Now everyone will think I’ve fallen into heresy!

Does this count as declaring myself a formal heretic?

 

[Dauphin]

I’m not attackint your church. I am just trying to find out why you believe such things as you about the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, the immaculate comception of Mary, Purgatory and the Papacy when none of those things are taught in Scriptures. Is it because some of the early church fathers told you to???

You’re being obtuse.

You’ve had very good explanations offered to you. If you wanted to understand church doctrine, you would already. It’s clear you don’t want to learn or understand, so bugger off!

 

[Pwrlftr]

As I just posted on another thread, Tradition enjoys greater independence than Scripture. For the credibility of Tradition and the truth of doctrines therein contained can be determined by infallible judgment independently of Scripture, i.e., the Canon of the Bible, once you grant that the successors of Peter and the Apostles enjoys the protection of the Holy Spirit. Holy Scripture in all its parts cannot be known as a source of revelation without the witness of Tradition, and therefore depends on it. I, again, repeat, it is a source of never failing wonder to Catholics that so many Protestants cannot understand this.

The church did play a role in the recognition of the canon but where we part company is on the issue of infallibility.

 

[onenow1]

I’m not attackint your church. I am just trying to find out why you believe such things as you about the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, the immaculate comception of Mary, Purgatory and the Papacy when none of those things are taught in Scriptures. Is it because some of the early church fathers told you to???

John 19.
25 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.
26 When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
28 After this Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfil the scripture), “I thirst.”

Quote = OneNow1. It’s really very simple OS.

John was certainly not Jesus brother, and Jesus being without sin certainly would have kept Jewish law by entrusting one of his brothers if he had one.

Vs. 28 Notice what John says after Jesus gave his Mother to John[US] TO FULFILL SCRIPTURE. Then Jesus said it is finished.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[CentralFLJames]

Darnit! I meant to vote no! Now everyone will think I’ve fallen into heresy!

Does this count as declaring myself a formal heretic?

Me too. The question was very poorly worded. I feel intellectually raped.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

The church did play a role in the recognition of the canon but where we part company is on the issue of infallibility.

That’s because you have no choice but to part company. Once you embrace a do-it-yourself model all you can rely on is an assumption of your own infallibility or your ability to shop and pay for someone who can sell you something you want to hear. Protestants by fiat simply declared the pope fallable and the individual infallible. If somone can believe the validity of this logical absurdity then somone can believe anything since one departs company with common sense as well as the ability to discern truth. If one can not accept the infallability of a single spokesperson how can one logically accept infallability of each member of a collection of people? The Kingdom of heaven is not attainable through majority rule or by creating “clubs” of like minded believers.

The protest of Protestantism was invoked with the same general pattern of rebellion that humankind had always had since the time of the fall in Eden. It was based on mistrust of authority as provoked by demagoguery. Given the symmetry of the problem it should intuitively be “a good bet” the error is usually on the side opposed to authority. A rational premise for this theory is that a primal authority comes from somewhere. And rebellion is nothing more profound that trying to usurp authority and give it to somone else. The very pattern of “theft” should be highly indicative of moral corruption. The pattern we would expect to see arise from a natural and lawful migration of authority should take the form of inheritance or a benevolent action of “giving”.

Therefore an objective and sensible mind should be able to see that anything grasped at (as in reaching for the forbidden fruit in the garden) is indicative of a general pattern of sin and selfishness. That should be sufficient recognition that Protestantism is not only in error it is in fact like trying to steal blessings that not only invite consequences and corrective justice but also invite a replication of the same pattern of theft from its own children who learn from their parents behavior. And that is what we currently see in the legion of Protestant sects popping up like weeds all over the planet.

James

 

[qui_est_ce]

Is the Doctrine of Nonessential Doctrine Biblical? YES NO

Darnit! I meant to vote no! Now everyone will think I’ve fallen into heresy!

Does this count as declaring myself a formal heretic?

Yes
"CFJ:

The poll was acutally worded kind of weird and I was very surprised to find myself alone in the way I voted.

Me too. The question was very poorly worded. I feel intellectually raped.

James

Now I feel intellectually challenged (and the 15 others who voted no)!

Many Protestants claim they have unity because they agree on the “Essential Doctrines;” their disagreements are merely on the “nonessential Doctrines.” I cannot find evidence of Essential Doctrine vs unessential Doctrine in the Bible. How can Doctrine be unessential? Perhaps I should start another thread on this topic.

How would you word it?

 

[EphelDuath]

perpetual virginity of Mary,

Ezekiel 44:2

the assumption of Mary

Psalm 131:8, Revelation 12:14

the immaculate comception of Mary

Judith 13:20 (foreshadowing), Luke 1:28

Purgatory

Sirach 2:5-6, 1 Corinthians 3:10-15

and the Papacy

Cf. Matthew 16:18-19/Isaiah 22:22

when none of those things are taught in Scriptures.

Where is Sola Scriptura taught in scripture?

Jesus says the Church will not fail. If the Catholic Church teaches idolatrous or false doctrines, Hell has prevailed. Therefore the Holy Spirit has guided the Church into proclaiming these doctrines.

Is it because some of the early church fathers told you to???

The ECF show that these beliefs existed before the alleged corruption of the Church by Constantine.