Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[LaSalle]

Hi Old Scholar

You can come up with all the arguments you want and all the ‘support’ you think you have to push forward the claim that SS utilises the ‘infallible’ word of God and that Christians must base everything on the bible and not on tradition. It sounds noble and all … but it is simply untenable.

SS is not able to tell us what God wants objectively. Does baptism have regenerative powers or does it not? Is it once saved always saved or can we lose our salvation? Does God predestine people to hell or not? These aren’t trivial stuff, these are ‘essentials’ and yet, major protestant denominations all USING SS and all sincerely believing that they are guided by the Holy Spirit are coming up with opposing doctrines. How do you explain that?

Here’s an analogy -

The Widget is touted to be able to lead you to positively lead you to Shangri La. People churn out heaps of documentation to state that it is only the Widget that can do it and that no other contraption has been sanctioned for this purpose. You must have the widget or you will never get to Shangri La … after all the arguments are the fact of the matter is clear - the widget simply doesn’t work. Everybody using the Widget all disagree on where Shangri La is … It doesn’t matter how compelling the ‘proof’ is, the facts speak for themself. Res ipsa loquitur.

Using SS just means that anybody can have an opinion - everyone is an authority. My interpretation trumps yours, if yours doesn’t sync with mine, ‘YOU are not listening to the clear words of the bible’. Who has the right interpretation?

There is no way to tell, whoever is most persuasive and most eloquent wins.

One needs an authoritative body to be able to say ‘This is what the Lord/bible says’, without this body all you have is competing factions all championing their interpretation and all believing that they are correct - this is precisely what we see in Protestantism.

It’s like going to court - both lawyers will have compelling arguments, both lawyers will pull out statutes and laws and expert witnesses. But without a judge/jury (i.e. some authoritative body) no one will know who wins the case. Same goes for Protestantism.

 

[Canto]

Of course you have references for all these claims???

Here are some sources…

By the way when Paul said “all scripture, inspired of God, is suitable to teach…etc” he was referring to the Old Testament and he used the Greek with the Deutrocannon

**Barrera, Julio Trebolle (a professor of Hebrew and Aramaic !)
The Jewish Bible and the Christian bible: an introduction to the history 1998
**Würthwein, Ernst
The Text of the Old Testament, 1995
**Barber, Michael
Loose Canons: The Development of the Old Testament
**McDonald & Sanders
The Canon Debate, 2002
Turkienicz, Rachael
Omitting the Maccabees 2002
Wikipedia (I know, I know)
**Wisdom (see Jerusale Bible 1966 and Douay Rheims Challoner etc)
Chapter 2 (passion of Christ)

Particualr quotes I found interesting…

Jacob Neusner published books in 1987 and 1988 that argued that the notion of a biblical canon was not prominent in second-century Rabbinic Judaism or even later and instead that a notion of Torah was expanded to include the Mishnah, Tosefta, Jerusalem Talmud, Babylonian Talmud and midrashim. - McDonald & Sanders

"Up until recently it was assumed that “apocryphal” additions found in the books of the LXX represented later augmentations in the Greek to the Hebrew texts. In connection with this, the Masoretic text (MT) established by the rabbis in the medieval period has been accepted as the faithful witness to the Hebrew Bible of the first century. Yet, this presupposition is now being challenged in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls…

…scholars were amazed to find that the Hebrew copies of 1 and 2 Samuel found in Cave 4 agree with the LXX against the MT. One of these fragments is dated into the third century B. C. and is believed to be the very oldest copy of a biblical text found to date. Clearly the Masoretic version of 1-2 Samuel is significantly inferior here to the LXX exemplar.". Barber Michael

TOBIT 4:16
16 See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another.
MATTHEW 7:12
Jesus: 12 All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them. For this is the law and the prophets.

WISDOM 7:7
7 Wherefore I wished, and understanding was given me: and I called upon God, and the spirit of wisdom came upon me:
EPHESIANS 3:17
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and of revelation, in the knowledge of him:

etc

The Deutrocannon is called Deutro as opposed to Proto as it took a little longer to decided wether they were canonical. They were made canoncial and as equal with the others at the council of Rome in the 300s. Other councils including those before and after Trent merely reaffirmed them just as the Church constantly reaffrims that Christ is our Saviour.

What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches?" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). St. Jerome

 

[fellowChristian]

Jesus commands the apostles to “preach,” not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God’s Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

Scripture Catholic
scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html#tradition-I

You don’t have to choose!
Catholics follow both Written and Oral Traditions.

First God speaks to Moses then Moses “passes on” the information/teachings to the rest of the tribes. Tradition

Then later it is written.

The Jewish people have Written Law and Oral Law.

Written Torah or the Tanakh

Oral Torah: The Talmud

In addition to the written scriptures we have an "Oral Torah," a tradition explaining what the above scriptures mean and how to interpret them and apply the Laws. Orthodox Jews believe G-d taught the Oral Torah to Moses, and he taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained only in oral form until about the 2d century C.E., when the oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah.

Judaism 101
jewfaq.org/torah.htm

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Oral_Law.html

wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah

First Jesus speaks to the Apostles then the Apostles “pass on” the information/teachings. Tradition

Then later it is written.

Scripture and Tradition
catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

Apostolic Tradition
catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

" ‘So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.’
Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit.
Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit.
It is a tradition, seek no farther."
John Chrysostom, Homily on 2nd Thessalonians, 4:2 (A.D. 404).

 

[fellowChristian]

**1 Timothy 3:15 **

but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

Paul did not say Scripture he said "the church"

**Matthew 18:17-18 **

17"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

18"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

The Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith.

**Matthew 16:18 **
18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Or

**Matthew 16:18 **
18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will write My book; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

And notice “My church” is singular, as in one church.

 

[mercygate]

As one who believes sola scriptura is a good doctrine, allow me to try express it properly. In order for sola scriptura to be applied properly, one must understand severalthings. Primarily, it is that Scripture (both Old and New Testaments) were written to people of ‘high-context cultures’, which meant that things that would have been understood by men of common backgrounds (say Luke and the person he is writing his Gospel and Acts to, or Paul and the churches he writes letters to, etc.) are left unsaid. Modern American ‘low-context culture’ spoon feeds everything, even if it is mere repetition to the intended audience. Things that would be mentioned by a writer in a ‘low-context culture’ are left unwritten in a ‘high-context culture’ because it is assumed that said audience, with a common background, would already know said things.

The problem for the modern reader (or any reader existing in the Post-Apostolic period) is filling in those ‘contextual blanks’. Filling in those ‘blanks’ is a necessary part of sola scriptura. To deny so, in my opinion, renders good exegetical interpretation of Scripture virtually imposible (barring Diving Revelation or blind ‘luck’ in the interpretive process).

What many people call sola scriptura might better be described as Sola Scriptura Extremis, which J. P. Holding of Tekton Apologetics Ministries discusses here.

Attempting to fill in these contextual blanks is usually accomplished through analysis of the following:

Obviously, this does not guarantee accuracy. After all, the Patristic and Pre-NT Jewish writings would have written within the framework of a ‘high-context culture’. This more nuanced method of sola scriptura seems also to require more patience (and also perhaps humility) than the ‘anything goes shot-in-the-dark’ method used by some well-known Protestants. In some ways, it would be nearly impossible for one person to do all this. After all, one maybe an expert in the Patristics, or Ancient Hebrew, or Roman history and culture, or a myriad of other things, but I have yet to meet someone who is truly all-knowing. The truly great modern apologists (and I would count J. P. Holding and people at Christian Think-Tank among them) have people who specialize in areas of knowledge (or at least have access to the writings of those with specialized knowledge) and they do not attempt to ‘go-it-alone’.

Perhaps Peter’s warning about prophecy being not of private interpretation should perhaps be applied a bit more to Scripture. The profit of sola scriptura is that it can promote each individual seeking a better understanding of Scripture and the faith, but the danger is that it can lead to laziness (people feel they need nothing else but their KJV bible), pride (people begin to think their interpretations of Scripture are the correct/best ones) and confusion (since so many people do put forth their private interpretations as factual, it makes it confusing to know who to believe).

Thus, it seems one is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The Roman Catholics don’t believe in it and many Protestants may believe it, but they sure don’t apply it properly.

You have given me a new tool: the concept/term “high-context culture.”

The Church was definitely the “high-context culture” in which Scripture emerges; the intersitces in the written word were not blank. The Catholic Church today remembers what fleshed-out the interstices.

Rather, the Catholic Church WAS such a culture. From the pew’s-eye-view today, we need to do a lot of repetition and filling in blanks that were once part of the background.

 

[ralphinal]

Great post, nsper7. Too many people read scriptures as if they were written yesterday for someone in our culture. The morals are the same, as is the basic message. The inferences that we make are not.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Bump For Guanaphore or Cascherman

cascherman:

I was merely using your post to share a part of why Catholics do not accept sola-scriptura. I admitted the question wasn’t for me.

Material sufficiency would be: edit- rephrase enough in the Bible to provide salvation if properly interpreted. And I assume guanophors answer would be yes, materially, but not fully sufficient.

partim-partim, no idea.

I don’t mind you answering or replying to me, but I had a reason to ask what I did. Your answer for material sufficiency is very close to what James Akin related in the below article.
JAMES AKIN:

MANY Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.

It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter Kaspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.

French theologian Yves Congar states, “[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians.” . . . [At Trent] it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . [W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.' .. Written’ and `unwritten’ indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge" (Tradition and Traditions [New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).

This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it. In the debate James White apparently failed to grasp this point and was unable to come up with answers to the charge that his arguments were geared only toward proving material sufficiency.

If “all is in scripture, all is in tradition” and everything needed for salvation is in scripture than why do so many of you quote the below verse as an appeal to tradition in the hopes of demonstrating scripture needs something else called “tradition”?
2 Thessalonians 2:15:

15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Based on the above definition of material sufficiency (I realize this isn’t formal sufficiency) doesn’t it make sense that Paul is referring to traditions that have to be in the scriptures (all is in scripture, all is in tradition)?

If you believe in the partim-partim theory of tradition (part of God’s revelation is in scripture and part in Tradition (I even capatilized the T for you guys)) than I can see why you would quote 2Thess 2:15.

I guess I don’t see why someone who holds to material sufficiency of the scriptures would use 2Thess2:15 in his/her apologetic since by definition it would appear that those traditons Paul is talking about have to be in scripture.

 

[Church_Militant]

How is it possible that catholics don’t know what these Sacred Traditions are?
Don’t catholics study these things and know what they are?

Is the catechism all the Sacred Traditions?

Let’s turn this back on you? Do you know all there is to know about your own faith community? Do you know all the history and traditions of the 2,000 years of Christianity? Do you even have access to all of that?

My point is, why ask something of rank and file Catholics that you and most n-Cs can’t measure up to themselves?

The average faithful Catholic will be able to respond to many things, or even most things asked of him, but for ALL of it, you’d need to seek your answers in Rome. (BTW, I do know a guy whose family went there and did just that and converted as a result.)

How do you respond to my point that St. Jude literally quotes 3 different Jewish traditional sources into the inspired canon in his epistle if you wish to reject Sacred Tradition? Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.

 

[Church_Militant]

Thanks for your post. So am I correct in saying that it is your understanding that “tradition” as it is used in the doctrine of the Trinity is simply the development of the doctrine but that the roots or all the stuff that makes up the doctrine are are found in scripture?

In this particular case…yes.

 

[mangy_dog]

Were not the apocryha i.e. dutrocanical books of the OT not considered fully inspired and inerrant before the reformation and it was not until Trent that the council “elevated” them to full status as the other 66?

Protestants didn’t care about that at the time. They were just concerned about breaking away from the Catholic church. They weren’t concerned with the “final draft” or if there were any plans of a “Complete Bible” being put out. The 66 book bible was just right for them because it also represented their complete oposition to the One, True church. The 7 additional books of the final canonization were the final divide that further distanced the protestant “reformists”. Seven books…- it’s ironic that 7 are also the sacraments that were also rejected.
If I have the first 5 books of the Bible, they’re called the Torah. If I have only the Christian scriptures, its called the New Testament. If I have a 66 book bible, its a collection of holy books because they belong to the bible…but it would have to be called an incomplete bible.

 

[Pwrlftr]

In this particular case…yes.

CM,

Take a look at post 246 and let me know what you think.

 

[guanophore]

Well your dates are far off but of course it is preaching that spreads the word. It’s when that preaching can’t be backed up with Scripture that it becomes false.

We all believe in tradition but no tradition that has anything to do with faith or morals is valid. The early church fathers taught that. Are you sure you want to put your faith in what one man told another, and another, and another, and another…?

So much hateful anticatholic bigotry. How did this come about? Were you badly wounded by a Catholic?

Catholics do not put theri faith in “what one man told another, etc”. Our faith is founded upon Christ. What has been handed down is the Gospel:

2 Tim 2:1-2
, 2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Through the paradosis. When you deny this, you are saying that God is weak, or lying, that He was unable or unwilling to watch over His word to perform it.

Martin Luther was telling the truth. The Catholic Church possessed most of the Bibles and kept them from the general public for hundreds of years and forbade them from reading it. In fact, had it not been for the invention of the printing press, we would still be in the dark. When Bibles could be mass produced, the common man could not be kept from it and when people like Martin Luther began to be able to read it, the truth started coming out and is still coming out.

The Catholic church possessed the Bible because it is a Catholic book, written by, for, and about Catholics. She tried to protect the copyright, but it was stolen, and bastardized. Now we see the fruit of separating the book from the Sacred Tradition from whence it was produced.

You clearly have a very warped view of history. Martin Luther was a Catholic monk. He was trained in the scripture, just as were all clerics. You seem to think that, instead of the Catholic Church attempting to educate him, they were hiding the Scripture!

 

[guanophore]

No one has ever questioned the authority of the church to settle such a dispute such as this. This is a disciplinary problem of the church. It doesn’t affect salvation or this person’s faith. That is for Christ to decide. The problem is that you believe there is only 1 church and that isn’t true.

If you notice, Jesus did not distinguish what sort of dispute arose. Did you think he could not see the Sola Scriptura dispute coming? Disciplinary problems do affect salvation and a persons faith. Look what has happened to you! Somehow some Catholic behavior has created an environment for your bigotry to grow and blossom.

There is ONLY ONE CHURCH. Jesus did not say “I will build my churches”.

Eph 4:3-6
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Jesus calls upon us to remain in unity, and prays that we may be one, as He and the Father are One.

 

[Church_Militant]

Such passages as these, on behalf of the authority of Scripture can be culled from the fathers without end. ** Clearly the church fathers affirmed the material sufficiency of the Scriptures.**

In fact, one may be tempted to present these passages in support of the idea that the church fathers embraced Sola Scriptura.You could, but then you’d be dead wrong. You see, there is no way that these ECF are supporting Sola Scriptura for one very simple and glaring fact. It is not in the scriptures to begin with, so, None of these ECF would be supporting it. They, just like the Catholic Church of today, love and embrace the Word of God, but not an errant doctrine that is not taught in the Bible to begin with.

The fact is that if anything they are making a very good case against it for the very reason that I just stated.

Why is it that the Catholic Church of today has strayed so far away from the belief held so dearly of the sufficiency of Scripture by the early church?

I hasn’t strayed, and the ECF do not support the error that you preach.

**This is the way it was in the beginning, before the church became the Roman Catholic Church **

and they started “finding” new doctrines and making their dogmas that could not be backed up by Scripture.This is rhetorical bunkum that bears no substance, again, in part because there was no historical time when the church was not Catholic. Look at the Greek test of Acts 9:31 at the words translated “The church throughout all” and then take the time to read the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to Smyrna where he calls the church by it’s name long before you say it came into existence. (Chapter 8:18, “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”)

All you can deny it and deny it but it is true.

No… it is factually NOT true, OS.

I have no doubt that the early fathers also considered tradition within the context of the church but not at the expense of Scripture, which is what we have today.

Wrong again…

 

[Church_Militant]

Church Militant

Are you saying I am doing what the RCC does? Making claims without Scriptural support?

Cute… irrelevant and again… grossly untrue. If you have no substance then you have to resort to rhetoric like this don’t you.

 

[Church_Militant]

CM,

Take a look at post 246 and let me know what you think.

I think that Jimmy Akin makes a very good point, but as I pointed out to OS, since the ECF appeal to scripture then they also reject SS because it is unscriptural to begin with. That is why the Catholic Church rejects it.

I think I can readily agree with Jimmy Akin and I’m glad you provided that since it explains something that I suspect that I and many other Catholics may not know or understand any better than the n-Cs that we dialog with.
Thanks!

 

[guanophore]

Does what you are claiming explain the many different things of the Roman Catholic Church that does not agree? Such as homosexual priests, women priests, priests who support homosexual marriage, priests who promote abortion and I could go on and on. Where did they get their truth?

This is a preposterous line of logic. Are you going to judge the truth of the message by sinners that don’t conform with it?! This is like saying that everything Jesus did and taught is invalid because Judas betrayed him. What sense does that make?

People don’t even judge against Sola Scriptura based on sinners who say they believe it.

You are evidently failing to make a distinction between the Catholic church as an entity purified by God, and the sinners who have been attached to her.

 

[elvisman]

Like I said…You just don’t read enough…

So - St. Augustine DIDN’T write this?
Is THAT what you’re saying? Enlighten me.
**You see, that’s the kind of weak apologetics that people are objecting to on this board.
**You come here, and type the most ridiculously ignorant drivel and present it as fact. Then, when somebody calls you on it, you reply with something like this - or you run.
Weak, my friend . . . WEAK.

 

[elvisman]

No one has ever questioned the authority of the church to settle such a dispute such as this. This is a disciplinary problem of the church. It doesn’t affect salvation or this person’s faith. That is for Christ to decide. The problem is that you believe there is only 1 church and that isn’t true.

Jesus DIDN’T build his Church? He’s a liar? He CERTAINLY didn’t say, “Build my ChurchES”.
Ummm . . . HOW MANY “churches” are there then.
Enlighten me, Old “Scholar”.

 

[guanophore]

It is important for Roman Catholics to argue against *Sola Scriptura *because if they believe it, they can’t claim that the New Testament writers viewed certain *non-scriptural sources *as authoritative oral tradition.

Please explain what you mean by this. I can make no logical sense out of this assertion. Of course the NT used non-scriptual sources as authoritative oral tradition! The whole teachings of Jesus fall into this category. I don’t understand why this is a problem for you.

Are you just lifting this stuff off of some anticatholic website, written by someone who does not think well?