Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[mercygate]

This is an interesting idea that seems to have some merit. Let me run with it some and play.

So it then might be legitimately said that the Protestants in producing KJV in an old English colloquialism and font have changed the intersitces and committed fraud by not only embellishing the word of God through the Old English sans-serif but also abruptly changed and hijacked the traditions by recasting The Church to social mannerisms of a middle-age motif.

I think its fair to say that Protestants KJV looses something in the translation by projecting Jesus into an out of era vernacular and motif. It is not too extreme to say that KJV drapes the Good News in the tones, manner, social cloth and speaking airs more common to an English Lord and “Gentleman” than they are to a sandled Jew speaking Aramaic. I wonder how many impressionable 1500’s era children (and later) hearing a recitation of KJV imagined Jesus walking about in coat tails, top hat and leather boots knocking door to door and inviting sinners to tea? And certainly the obtuse Old English fonts and lofty linguistic mannerisms in KJV present an unnecessary opportunity for new artifacts and error. After-all, the “thee’s” and “thou’s” and “thy’s” embellish not only the intersitces and other nuances but impose or encourage new private interpretations of traditions to be found hiding amidst the more flowery sans-serif. I wonder just how many years it will take modernist publishers to get to a revised KJV edition to produce a phrase like: ‘wouldst thou be favorably advised to partake of tea and crumpets in memory of me’ as a substitute for the last supper?

A dyed in the wool fundamentalist Sola Scruptura’st, should see that KJV taken alone without tradition easily defeats the traditionally conveyed white space seen and heard in the “ah’s”, "uhm’s, sighs, hand waving and other body language that are implicitly but conspicuously present (and therefor integral with the traditional faith) in the oral rendering of God’s word. At least the Catholics know to go to tradition to see and hear all that. But perhaps the impassioned hand waving with plain speech is an Italian thing?

Bottom Line: I think that the point about the quiet words hiding in the white space and the intersitces is a valid point. Without benefit of tradition how would anyone even be able to translate the bible into modern words and semantics? I believe that any published Bible has to some degree incorporated an assumption of tradition in its translation. Therefor there is no valid concept of Scripture without Tradition since they are so co-joined that they can not ever be fully seperated anymore so than blood can be seperated from the living body.

Perhaps the more honest question that we need to ask here is “just what ‘Scriptura’ are we talking about” when we discuss “Sola Scriptura”? We Catholics think KJV is 7 books shy of truth. And I don’t think it is legitimate to discuss Sola Scruptura without co-discussing the associated Protestant Tradition of Private interpretation.

That said I’ll use the KJV rendering of scripture to recall the warning about those who would change the bible. Does KJV condemn itself here or is this a matter of deference to the Protestant tradition of private interpretation and pretending there is none?

James

I dunno. This all seems needlessly pejorative. The KJV was a very good translation in its day and certainly no more problematic than the Latin Vulgate. Nobody (except maybe the KJV-only crowd) claims that any translation holds the same authority as the autograph.

Given the paucity of ancient-language manuscripts available in the 16th & 17th centuries, the KJV represents a very high achievement. Moreover, when the translators did their work, they consulted the Douay-Rheims translation, and then in the 18th Century, when Bishop Challoner revised the Douoay-Rheims version, he consulted the KJV.

 

[Old_Scholar]

BUMP

waiting for a courtesy answer on sources, old scholar

I am giving you the reference and you can find it in any legitimate encyclopedia. Mine came from Encarta. Just go there and inquire about the Jewish Canon. And by the way, the Palestinian Canon was the one you want.

**

from the encyclopedia Encarta

The idea in Israel of a sacred book dates at least from 621 BC. During the reform of Josiah, king of Judah, when the temple was being repaired, the high priest Hilkiah discovered “the book of the law” (see 2 Kings 22). The scroll was probably the central part of the present Book of Deuteronomy, but what is important is the authority that was ascribed to it. More reverence was paid to the text read by Ezra, the Hebrew priest and scribe, to the community at the end of the 5th century BC (see Nehemiah 8).
The Hebrew Bible became Holy Scripture in three stages. The sequence corresponds to the three parts of the Hebrew canon: the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. On the basis of external evidence it seems clear that the Torah, or Law, became Scripture between the end of the Babylonian exile (538 BC) and the separation of the Samaritans from Judaism, probably by 300 BC. The Samaritans recognized only the Torah as their Bible.
The second stage was the canonization of the Nebiim (Prophets). As the superscriptions to the prophetic books indicate, the recorded words of the prophets came to be considered the word of God. For all practical purposes the second part of the Hebrew canon was closed by the end of the 3rd century, not long before 200 BC.

**

Now if you read that carefully, you will see that the canon was closed by 200 BC but was begun in 400 BC.

But you probably won’t believe an encyclopedia either.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I may be late to this party, but…

Precisely who was it that “declared Scripture” to be Scripture? For that matter, why should this mysterious someone’s declaration hold any water with regard to being an authoritative (and presumably binding) declaration? And was there any sort of “gap” or interval of time between said Scripture being penned, and it being “declared Scripture” by a competent and authoritative source? If so, what did the faithful do in this interval to determine genuine from counterfeit teaching?

UNLESS you can identify a group that was de facto “in charge” and given the green light to make such authoritative and binding declarations.

Now who could that be…no, don’t tell me…I’ll get it!



This is one of the quandaries I ran headlong into years before I considered the Catholic Church. When it says in the Book of Acts that they [the believers] “followed the apostle’s doctrine”, what did this mean? It was nearly 1500 years too early before Guttenburg designed his printing press. They didn’t all have great big Schofield Study Bibles in red leatherette on the coffee table to refer to. They couldn’t just go into their library and check out a copy of the Tenach (much less the writings of the Apostles). So what was the primary vehicle for transmitting the faith? Logically it would have had to have been by word of mouth. The “Word of God” then likely had a much broader definition than many give it today. It quite likely refered to that whole deposit of faith that was entrusted to the apostles and their successors. Hence, “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” rings true as the means of evangelizing and teaching the ekklesia.

This deposit is referred to as “Sacred Tradition” and enfolds the Holy Scriptures, the unchanging oral doctrine of the Church, and the perview of the Magesterium to declare authoritatively and without error the whole council of God.

Try II Peter, chapter 3.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Rob << Oh, and of course, those proof texts on the “Trinity” and that pesky “Jewish canon 200 years before Christ.” We are all so excited, waiting for YOUR references! >>

Sorry to be controversial, but I think there is a legitimate scholarly debate between Catholics and Protestants on the O.T. canon.

The OT Canon of the NT Church by Anglican Roger Beckwith presents the Anglican/Protestant side that the “correct canon” is the 39 of the Hebrew Bible, and he sets forth arguments it was settled a couple hundred years before Christ. He also deals with citations from the early Fathers, from Josephus, and others.

Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger by Gary Michuta presents the Catholic side that the OT canon of Jesus and the apostles was the Greek Septuagint which (probably) contained the deuteros, that the NT itself strongly alludes to the deuteros, that all of the Fathers before St. Jerome used the deuteros in their examples and biblical citations, considered the books “inspired” and “Scripture”, and that St. Jerome was really the first one to call the deuteros “apocrypha” and “not canonical.” Although even St. Jerome quoted these books along with the Hebrew canon.

As for the Trinity, I would suggest it is a biblical doctrine, but not an “explicit-enough” biblical doctrine in the sense required to refute fourth-century Arianism. St. Athanasius recognized that.

Sorry, now back to the topic of sola scriptura. And Old Scholar can attempt to tell me that Schaff, Kelly, Pelikan, Congar and James White are all wrong, that all the Fathers indeed taught sola scriptura, and that Jesus and the apostles practiced sola scriptura without a complete existing rule of faith.

Phil P

**Way to go. Your first reference was from an advertisement and then quoting Athananius, you listed this:

For if they speak, a condemnation will follow; and if they be suspected, proofs from Scripture will be cast at them from every side. **

Just as I have been saying, they all combated heretics with Scripture.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

Are you caying that Protestants chabge their minds as the Catholics have changed dogmas and doctrines throughout the years? So we all change our minds…Is that it?

 

[CentralFLJames]

If you are serious you should learn what it is. Based on some of your posts you are simply drawing up a straw man.

No, this is the caricature that you have created.

It is not a strawman - it is directly responsive to the thread. Perhaps this topic is a strawman? In that sense maybe its not worthy of additional comment since I think the notion of its legitiamcy was defeated outright in the first half dozen or so posts by Catholic apologists including myself.
If you do not think my caricature is fair - please elaborate with specific examples where I have an improper understanding of sola scriptura.

Well James, who has the authentic teaching of Rome? Should I listen to you who seemingly thinks I am bound for damnation because I am not Catholic or should I listen to other Catholics who assure me that although I am not a formal member of your church I am somehow still a part of it (I guess through baptism) and have nothing to worry about? In fact, I even had a priest I was talking to tell me that as long as I am the best Christian I can be I don’t need your church.

The Church does of course. I can site you the CCC if you don’t trust my conveyance. That’s the nice thing about having a central authority with one teaching. But what protestant can I talk to that speaks with holistic authority to ask her why protestants think the Pope is the devil and why we Catholics are all going to hell?
But least you be mistaken understand that you are most definitely not a conscious and willing member of the Catholic Church who is on full communion with The Catholic Church. Only God can decide for certain where you end up. But outside of the full communion with all the sacraments it is going to be exceedingly hard for you to be obedient to God’s commandments and attain salvation. If you don’t convert I’d suggest you keep a few Catholics around as close friends praying for you. You also need to understand “Priest talk”. He spoke correctly but the details are in what he means about “best” Christian possible - that means being full obedient to Christ.

Well, either you are ignorant of sola scriptura or you are simply interested in polemics. If you are here to witness and not just argue back and forth you should probably present the other side as honestly as you can. I am sure you would rail against someone who insists that you worship Mary.

No, it could be that you are ignorant about how to draw logical inferences. And I can’t elaborate too much more from the other side since there is really not any substance to elaborate. Sola Scriptura is unbiblical. What more can be said?

Since you haven’t addressed what sola scriptura is why should I listen to you? You either don’t care enough to honestly discuss the issue or you haven’t takent the time to understand it. Why would I listen to someone who flails at windmills?

If sola scriptura is a false doctrine you haven’t done much of anything to demonstrate it’s falseness. I guess because of your poor apologetic I am still ignorant.

It was the duty of the topic starter to define what sola scriptura is. The assumption is that those posting here know what it is. I know enough about it to know that at face value its without substance. If you want to write the key tenants of sola scriptura here that are essential to you accepting it then I and I am sure others will step through each one and defeat them for you so liberate you.

I may very well be a poor apologetic but I don’t think its fair to scape goat me for your rejection of the truth. I have answered the OP with definate personal reasons why I and most catholics can not accept SS. He did not ask for me to change his belief.
Are you inviting me to talk you out of it?

James

 

[Old_Scholar]

guanophore:
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.

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!

Do you consider issuing an edict that the common man is not allowed to read the Scriptures as "hiding the Scriptures?"

 

[fbl9]

hi again oldscholar;; to which the reply you know is coming which doctrines and dogmas have been changed? i myself know of none but you may.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

I find it a little strange that I am considered a bigot simply because my faith is strictly Scriptural and you are not, yet you are the one who doesn’t believe Scripture…How odd!

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.
I hasn’t strayed, and the ECF do not support the error that you preach.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.”)
No… it is factually NOT true, OS.Wrong again…

How can you be a good Catholic and not believe what your early church fathers had to say about their beliefs? Do you just deny the words you don’t like or do you deny all their writings?

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

But when Protestants disagree you don’t say they’re just sinners…

 

[wanner47]

**Do you consider issuing an edict that the common man is not allowed to read the Scriptures as “hiding the Scriptures?”

I find it a little strange that I am considered a bigot simply because my faith is strictly Scriptural and you are not, yet you are the one who doesn’t believe Scripture…How odd!**

Re: your first statement: prove it.
**
Your second statement is a lie**, and I am bewildered as to how you can have that opinion when it goes contrary to what every Catholic in this thread has said regarding Scripture.

Are you not aware that it’s a sin to lie, Old Scholar?

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

So you just believe what the early fathers say that you agee with…

 

[elvisman]

YooHoo - OLD "SCHOLAR??

Are you ever going to respond to posts 257, 258 and 261??
My guess is that they stumped you and proved that you’re just here to play Devil’s Advocate - NOT to dialogue.
At any rate - respond when you get a chance. I’m just dyin’ to hear what you have to say . . .

 

[Old_Scholar]

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”.

First there was the Church of Jerusalem, the Church at Antioch, The Church at Phidelphia, the Church at Alexandria and the Church at Rome. Then they started multiplying rapidly. They were all INDEPENDENT CHURCHES not under anyone’s rule except their bishop.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Ha, what irony!
OldScholar, Where does the New Testiment claim that it is inspired? Give us the verses where Jesus said the the Books of the New Testiment were Scripture!

You’re dodging the question. You know the New Testament books claim inspiration but you can’t find that any of the apocrypha books do. They definitely don’t. In fact we have no idea who wrote them

 

[Old_Scholar]

From the last Chapter of the Gospel of John…
21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

If the power to forgive sins, given only to the Apostles (along with the binding and loosing = laying of hands = handing on authority) is not God breathed, what, praytell, is??

.

Read my words again. Scripture is God-breathed. All Scripture. Nothing else.

 

[Orionthehunter]

After reading the posts of the Original Poster, I think that his screen name is a misnomer.

 

[elvisman]

First there was the Church of Jerusalem, the Church at Antioch, The Church at Phidelphia, the Church at Alexandria and the Church at Rome. Then they started multiplying rapidly. They were all INDEPENDENT CHURCHES not under anyone’s rule except their bishop.

That’s EXACTLY what I thought you’d say.
They were ALL ONE Church - just the locale was different.
HERE is what St. Paul had to say about Factions:

1 Cor. 1:10-11:
*"I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. *
**For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you." **

 

[CentralFLJames]

But when Protestants disagree you don’t say they’re just sinners…

Old Scholar, how long are you going to play this rope-a-dope game? This is highly indicative of insincerity.

You walk out into the arena of ideas and you toss out preposterous statements then wait for everyone to give you well thought out rationale for why what you said is absurd. They you sit back on the ropes in a defensive posture and make one liner rhetorical comments like this to produce the next salvo of replies. You repeat this pattern of hit and run to the ropes ad-nauseum knowing full well that you are not here to learn nor productively debate but only to play a rhetorical game.

This rope-a-dope game is wasting a lot of people’s time while giving you an anti-catholic platform to take cheap below-the-belt shots at The Church.

You might want to ask yourself what it means if you are wrong about Catholicism on the day of judgement?

If I was moderator I’d ban you.

James