Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[guanophore]

Than for Paul to make use of the EX-marital status makes no sense in the context of a passage where he talks about his and Barnabas’ right to have a wife. 1. If they used to be married< but were encouraed to divorce at some later point this completely argues against what he is saying.

Who said anything about divorce?!

In fact, scripture states that the wives accompanied them in the apostolic missions!

(1 Cor. 9:5). 2. I believe a bigger issue would be that they divorced as believers, which is frowned upon by our Lord Jesus Christ and St. Paul the Apostle. Christ said that if a man divorces his wife, except for in the case of marital infidelity, he forces his wife to commit adultery. Paul said that divorce is only permissible(sp?) if one of the partners is an un-believer and that un-believing partner walks out. If we hold that Peter (the supposed first Pope) got a Scripturally wrong divorce what does that say about him?

You are just making up stuff, and projecting your own modern attitudes into the text.

 

[guanophore]

Do you think they abandoned their families? I’m not sure what you mean here.

Luke 5:10-11
And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; henceforth you will be catching men.” 11 And when they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed him.

Mark 10:28-31
28 Peter began to say to him, “Lo, **we have left everything **and followed you.” 29 Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, 30 who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. 31 But many that are first will be last, and the last first.”

How does it seem to you?

 

[guanophore]

No. Tradition does not say they abandoned their families.

Scripture is silent on the status of any of the Apostle’s wives. It is unknown whether Peter’s “gyne” was his wife or or a woman like those who followed Jesus, and if she was his wife, we do not know whether their relationship was continent, as was the norm for elders in the second century Church.

Clearly, although Peter says “we have left everything”, he still had a boat to go back to [was it his own?] when he went fishing with 6 of his buddies, and the Lord’s resurrection appearance to them on the seashore.

mercygate’s pet theory: In Luke 4, when Peter, James and John “leave their nets” immediately after the first miraculous draft of fish, Zebedee disbursed the income from that catch to support their families during the time that they spent away from their trade.

Now back to topic. Scripture “alone” is inconclusive on the marital status of the Apostles. That Peter had a mother-in-law, we know. Whether his wife was alive, we know not.

1 Cor 9:5-6
5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?

Does it not sound like Cephas is accompanied by a wife who supports him during missionary journeys?

 

[guanophore]

I said that because if you were saying that the apostles and the brothers of Jesus left their wives, then Paul’s argument for their right to be married and making use of that right makes no sense. Why should we assume that the Apostles left their wives and (possibly) children when they became Apostles? How odd it would be for Peter in 1 Peter 3 to make such a big deal about husbands and wives if he abandoned his own wife and his post as husband? Yet, this is all assumption. We cannot say whether or not they stayed married, but we can call into witness the Scriptures, which tell us God’s view of marriage, the only reasons for getting a divorce and the purpose of marriage.

All I said was that there was no evidence Peter ever returned to marital relations. It has nothing to do with abandonment, divorce, or any other of these preposterous theories.

 

[wisdomseeker]

All I said was that there was no evidence Peter ever returned to marital relations. It has nothing to do with abandonment, divorce, or any other of these preposterous theories.

Guanaphore must be right on this one!
Let’s see. Peter had to be gone most of the time preaching in many differents towns. running, hiding from his prosecuters who sought to kill him. spend many times in jail. died in Rome. was his wife with him through at all? faith and reason tells me NO!

 

[Pearson]

Guanaphore must be right on this one!
Let’s see. Peter had to be gone most of the time preaching in many differents towns. running, hiding from his prosecuters who sought to kill him. spend many times in jail. died in Rome. was his wife with him through at all? faith and reason tells me NO!

So…if I left and never returned to my wife and five month old daughter in order to teach people about a God who stresses the importance and priority of being a husband and a father does not that seem a little hypocritical? I am not trying to toss faith nor reason aside. We cannot speak with power where Scripture is silent, so I will not go to the wall for this, but it would seem as if Peter, maybe, took family with him. Or maybe he came home on the “weekends” or maybe his family were martyered, or his wife left with the children we he picked up this “Christian stuff”. But to say that an Apostle, one of the foundations of the Church, abandoned his wife (and possibly children) for the sake of the Gospel, now that is silly.

And, call it what you want, it is abandonment. Whether it was for a good reason or a bad reason, it was abandonment if he did this. I am not sure what else I could call LEAVING the wife you gave yourself to in holy matrimony, before Holy God by covenant, outside of death.

 

[wisdomseeker]

So…if I left and never returned to my wife and five month old daughter in order to teach people about a God who stresses the importance and priority of being a husband and a father does not that seem a little hypocritical? I am not trying to toss faith nor reason aside. We cannot speak with power where Scripture is silent, so I will not go to the wall for this, but it would seem as if Peter, maybe, took family with him. Or maybe he came home on the “weekends” or maybe his family were martyered, or his wife left with the children we he picked up this “Christian stuff”. But to say that an Apostle, one of the foundations of the Church, abandoned his wife (and possibly children) for the sake of the Gospel, now that is silly.

And, call it what you want, it is abandonment. Whether it was for a good reason or a bad reason, it was abandonment if he did this. I am not sure what else I could call LEAVING the wife you gave yourself to in holy matrimony, before Holy God by covenant, outside of death.

This only proves that the CC is right. that is one of the reasons why priesthood is called vocation these priests are called by God to serve Him only. please read Rev. 14. tell me what it says.

 

[onenow1]

Hi, All
I tried to read most of these posts,have seen nothing but the same old anti-catholic rhetoric, so it made me recall this in scripture.

Matt 18: 7, “Woe to the world because of scandals ! For it must be that scandals come, but woe to the man through whom scandal does come.”

Luke 17:1 And he said to his disciples, “It is impossible that scandals should not come but woe to him through whom they come.”

Quote=OneNow 1: These are the the words of Jesus,and I don’t believe he is saying the church is the source of scandals ! its source is man ! The worst possible scandal ever was Judas and we do not Leave Peter and the rest of the Apostles because of the works of Judas. Anyway the head of the Church is Jesus and I believe its the head that tells the body what to do, not the opposite. All throughout biblical history God kept his covenant with man. Why should it be any different now. My 2 cents worth.

Some Examples: Abram lied[12:13] Isacc lied Genssis 26:7-11]
Jacob lied and deceived [Gensis 27:24] Solomon practiced idolatry [1Kings 11:1-43.]

There is only one church the Universal Church [Catholic ] and those with a valid Baptism not adhering to all truth.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hi, All
I tried to read most of these posts,have seen nothing but the same old anti-catholic rhetoric, so it made me recall this in scripture.

Matt 18: 7, “Woe to the world because of scandals ! For it must be that scandals come, but woe to the man through whom scandal does come.”

Luke 17:1 And he said to his disciples, “It is impossible that scandals should not come but woe to him through whom they come.”

Quote=OneNow 1: These are the the words of Jesus,and I don’t believe he is saying the church is the source of scandals ! its source is man ! The worst possible scandal ever was Judas and we do not Leave Peter and the rest of the Apostles because of the works of Judas. Anyway the head of the Church is Jesus and I believe its the head that tells the body what to do, not the opposite. All throughout biblical history God kept his covenant with man. Why should it be any different now. My 2 cents worth.

Some Examples: Abram lied[12:13] Isacc lied Genssis 26:7-11]
Jacob lied and deceived [Gensis 27:24] Solomon practiced idolatry [1Kings 11:1-43.]

There is only one church the Universal Church [Catholic ] and those with a valid Baptism not adhering to all truth.

Peace, OneNow1

well said!

 

[Old_Scholar]

Agree 100%.

The think the Protestants would have us believe that 500+ years of Protestant** tradition** spent preaching the validity of Sola Scriptura somehow imparts through their new tradition a new scriptural truth. Yet every time we tell them to “prove it” scripturally all we get is silence or rhetorical counter-pontification about the errors of infant baptism, Eucharist and papal authority. It’s almost as if the Protestants have embraced hypocrisy, irrationality and contradiction as a religion unto itself.

James

Isn’t it a little wierd how Catholics, who don’t really believe Scripture but believe Tradition instead, always, when pressed for an answer, **refer to Scripture **for proof???

Am I the only one who notices this?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Isn’t it a little wierd how Catholics, who don’t really believe Scripture but believe Tradition instead, always, when pressed for an answer, **refer to Scripture **for proof???

Am I the only one who notices this?

No. but i have never heard such an ignorant statement. if the catholics are the ones who wrote the Bible. How could they not believe it?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Isn’t it a little wierd how Catholics, who don’t really believe Scripture but believe Tradition instead, always, when pressed for an answer, **refer to Scripture **for proof???

Am I the only one who notices this?

Would you accept any source other than the Bible? Catholics believe the Deposit of Faith, consisting of Scripture and Tradition. How long have you been posting around here, again?

Actually, this post would make more sense coming from a Catholic…

Am I the only one who notices this?

 

[wanner47]

Isn’t it a little wierd how Catholics, who don’t really believe Scripture but believe Tradition instead, always, when pressed for an answer, **refer to Scripture **for proof???

Am I the only one who notices this?

It’s actually fairly similar to how Protestants, when confronted with the fact that the Bible does NOT teach a “Scripture-only” or “Scripture-alone” philosophy (and actually warns AGAINST it), bury their heads in the sand, refuse to acknowledge the facts, and resort to posting more lies and inaccuracies about Catholics and Catholic teaching.

Sound like anyone you know?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Would you accept any source other than the Bible? Catholics believe the Deposit of Faith, consisting of Scripture and Tradition. How long have you been posting around here, again?

Actually, this post would make more sense coming from a Catholic…

Am I the only one who notices this?

You are so right!

 

[mercygate]

So…if I left and never returned to my wife and five month old daughter in order to teach people about a God who stresses the importance and priority of being a husband and a father does not that seem a little hypocritical? I am not trying to toss faith nor reason aside. We cannot speak with power where Scripture is silent, so I will not go to the wall for this, but it would seem as if Peter, maybe, took family with him. Or maybe he came home on the “weekends” or maybe his family were martyered, or his wife left with the children we he picked up this “Christian stuff”. But to say that an Apostle, one of the foundations of the Church, abandoned his wife (and possibly children) for the sake of the Gospel, now that is silly.

And, call it what you want, it is abandonment. Whether it was for a good reason or a bad reason, it was abandonment if he did this. I am not sure what else I could call LEAVING the wife you gave yourself to in holy matrimony, before Holy God by covenant, outside of death.

I agree. But what did Peter mean by “leaving” and “everything”? Speculation: “leaving” was for the immediate period of discipleship? Or that he “left” “everything” of his claim on the fishing business to Zebedee and Co.

This should have its own thread.

 

[MrS]

Isn’t it a little wierd how Catholics, who don’t really believe Scripture but believe Tradition instead, always, when pressed for an answer, **refer to Scripture **for proof???

Am I the only one who notices this?

Catholics who “really” don’t believe Scripture are called Reformers.

.

 

[mercygate]

Isn’t it a little wierd how Catholics, who don’t really believe Scripture but believe Tradition instead, always, when pressed for an answer, **refer to Scripture **for proof???

Am I the only one who notices this?

Isn’t it a little weird how anti-Catholics slanderously accuse Catholics of not believing Scripture but then get annoyed when a Catholic plays by the anti-Catholic’s rules and addresses a subject purely from a scriptural platform with skill and sensitivity?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Isn’t it a little weird how anti-Catholics slanderously accuse Catholics of not believing Scripture but then get annoyed when a Catholic plays by the anti-Catholic’s rules and addresses a subject purely from a scriptural platform with skill and sensitivity?

Maybe we should pretend this was never said…as a favor to Old Scholar

 

[CentralFLJames]

Isn’t it a little wierd how Catholics, who don’t really believe Scripture but believe Tradition instead, always, when pressed for an answer, **refer to Scripture **for proof???

Am I the only one who notices this?

This is a completely false characterization of the Catholic teaching as well as completly contraditcs the testimony and witness of those Catholics who have posted in these forums. You know very well that The Catholic Church treats the scriptures and tradition with equal weight with the caveat that no tradition is embraced which contradicts scripture. This is a canard and you know it.

James

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

And of course, OS has been told countless times that the Bible came AFTER those Traditions and traditions were established by the Early Church and instituted in the Divine Liturgy (the Mass).

In other words, the Church’s Bible, our Holy Scripture, was assembled because those OT and NT scrolls, codices and letters supported Catholic (early Christian, including what is now known as Orthodox) teachings and rites.

He (OS) just doesn’t get it. He gets his theology from Chick Tracts.

Pray for wisdom to alight upon him

Robert