Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[Dauphin]

Now your turn. Do you think the Bible is a lie?

Let’s see what the council of Trent has to say:

*"The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,…]following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession." *

No. Since God is its author, the Bible is not a lie.

 

[Kolbe300]

“And how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
2 Timothy 3:15-19

Old Scholar, why did we need a New Testament if the only holy scriptures Timothy could have known since “infancy” was the Old Testament? Why did God reveal more to something that was already “sufficient”?

Scripture is said to be “God-breathed.” Nothing else is given this designation.

Someone pointed out that something else was indeed God-breathed: the apostles. You said infallibility died with them. Where does it say that in Scripture? Or is that just how you interpret it?

You say that when they speak of “tradition” in the Bible they are not speaking of tradition dealing with faith and morals. Where does the Bible say that? Or is that just how you interpret it?

You seem to be studied on the Church Fathers and believe they agree with you on Scripture. What about all the stuff they don’t agree with you on?

Peace!

 

[DarkMark]

Old Scholar, you keep saying “just your opinion”, but I am quoting the Fathers themselves. They did not believe in Sola-Scriptural.

“But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.” Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).

From this quote, we can understand that Athanasius did believe that one should follow Sacred Traditions. Now let explain the previous quotes. St. Athanasius affirms the sufficiency of Scripture as long as they are understood within the framework of the Church’s Tradition. We know this from His other quotes.

That’s just an opinion. He didn’t say that. And I see no mention there at all of “sacred traditions.”

He mention “Traditions that was pass down”. That is Sacred Traditions. The Apostle Paul spoke of it. He said we must accept the teachings of the Church, even if its not in Scriptures (TRADITIONS!)

St. Athanasius condemns the Arians for not using the ecclesiastical scope as a guide for interpreting Scripture. Without the Church, one cannot interpret Sacred Scriptures. Scripture is sufficient when it is read within the milieu of the Church’s Tradition. One still needs the Church Traditions. Athanasius believe that the Council of Nicea had authority, does this sound like a Bible alone preacher?

Again, just your opinion.

No. Any person with at least a 9th Grade education can read the quote I quoted and will say the same thing. . . .Its His words!

Saint Augustine

“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

This is not a faith situation, but a traditional one. It doesn’t say you should baptize or not. That is well covered other places in Scripture.

You kinda missing the point. Saint Augustine does not believe in Bible alone, or else he will not told people to believe these doctrines even if they are not in the Apostles writings!

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

You are simply twisting the Fathers to believe what you believe! There was Church Fathers who believe Traditions has no Authority!

All Church Fathers believe in The Real Presence of the Eucharist, Apostolic Succession (Ignatious and St Iraenaus), The Pope, Infant Baptism, Scared Traditions + Scriptures, praying for the dead, etc.

Tell me a Church Father who disagree with every Catholic Doctrine.

The Early Church were more Catholic than Protestant, the Fathers speak for themselves.

The Catholic Church is one Faith, while each Protestant Church disagree on what a particular Scriptures means.

 

[ricmat]

No. Any person with at least a 9th Grade education can read the quote I quoted and will say the same thing. . . .

DarkMark - was the above comment really necessary?

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

You may be looking for a verse that doesn’t exist. The verse said that if all that Jesus did was written down, the entire world could not hold all the books. It does not say that Jesus said anything regarding faith or morals that didn’t make the cut.

John 21:25 There are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they would all be written, I suppose that even the world itself wouldn`t contain the books that would be written.

That’s the one I referred to earlier

 

[DarkMark]

DarkMark - was the above comment really necessary?

The Father speak for Himself. I having nothing more to say. Its interesting that some can say the following quote means that the bag was green: “The Bag I have is blue”.

 

[DarkMark]

**What you are talking about is what tradition is. Tradition is not, for use as Scripture. Tradition does not have anything to do with faith and morals. Only Scripture does that. But tradition is important and you have pointed out some reasons why.

Please list the quote of Paul from Acts.**

That is your opinion Old Scholar, since no Scripture states “Traditions does not have anything to do with faith and morals”. There is no reason to believe that when the Apostle Paul wrote about Traditions that he was speaking about something that is not faith and morals.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy(blue)Old Scholar(red):

Well, its important to argue against because it’s viewed as being false and because it has produced considerable bad fruit in the form of disunity.
So you don’t believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

Of course I do! This is just another example of your fallible mind interacting with text. The concept of the inerrancy of Scripture is a separate issue from the question of Sola Scriptura being the rule a faith. Such a sophmoric error calls into question your self designated “scholar” status.

Notice how the term “in itself” is lacking from 2Tim3:16? That little detail changes what you “interpret” the verse to say, and what can reasonably be inferred from it.

I think you are trying to make it more difficult to believe. The verses plainly say that Scripture is sufficient. There is no ambiguity there.

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Im sorry, but now - in addition to adding “in itself” you have also added “sufficient” to what the Scripture’s actually say. You remain mistaken. I really cant help you to understand basic language comprehension on this forum. I will simply reiterate that the word “profitable” means that it is beneficial towards training in righteousness. It simply does not say that Scripture “alone” apart from teaching, training, correcting, etc accomplishes the end.

No man has an infallible mind but Scripture is infallible.

No, it isnt. Its inerrant. Infallible and inerrant are not equivalent.

The Scriptures tell us they can be understood and we can understand them without having to be told what they say.

Please list the address of each verse you draw your statements from - you are bound to do so as a SS adherent. Scripture tells us that some things are difficult to understand. Your 2nd Tim verse even discusses the need for “correction, teaching and reproof.”

If we disagree on some Scriptures, then we have those we can go to and discuss the issue.

This is known as the “twilight zone” of SS adherents - this situation only exists in your mind. Where, exactly, is your proof of this “discussion” producing unity? Its been 500 years since the “discussions” began and there are more Protestant versions of “what the Scriptures mean” than there have ever been in the history of Christianity. Lets deal with reality, not fantasy. The reality is that discussions of Scripture do not produce unity of faith.
****QUOTE]Likewise, the church is not infallible. As long as man is involved infallibility is not possible.

Really? How did we get an inerrant NT then? Are you claiming God wrote it? God operated through fallible men but protected them with the gift of infallibility in penning Scripture. He also gave the Apostles infallibility in “binding and loosing” sins when he gave them the gift of the holy Spirit. It appears you have not really given this topic very much thought. Im not surprised.

Paul wrote Timothy in order to give him the rules and guidelines on what to preach.

You mean that despite “knowing Scripture” Timothy STILL needed instruction??? I thought Scripture alone was good enough - sorry, but you cant have it both ways.

I repeat: If SS is “sufficient” to produce a knowledge of the Christian faith, then why are there so many contradictory opinions among well-educated, God fearing, sincere, SS adherents as to what that faith is?

I might ask then why the Roman Church has changed its mind so many times as its leaders have changed.

You might indeed because we all know that you cant produce an actual answer to the question asked, can you? You can run, but you cannot hide from the bad fruit of theological dissent caused by Sola Scriptura.

con’d

 

[Philthy]

At least Protestants and non Roman Catholics have Scripture to get the truth from. It isn’t necessary to believe one thing for hundreds of years and then have to change it like the RCC.

Oh boy - I do believe I’ve hit a nerve! :yup: I hope you are not frothing at the mouth - being “old” and all Im sure you are well studied in Catholic dogma vs doctrine, but that is a topic for a different thread. As it stands, you have no explanation for all the disunity of beliefs among SS adherents and you have no proposed method of changing this disunity other than “discussing it”. The only problem with that proposal is that, for 500 years, that method has produced even more disunity. That is what is known as an inconvenient truth my friend.

All of the original, “god breathed” writings(ie Scripture) of the New Testament are gone! All we have left are presumed copies of presumed writings

• preserved and promulgated by…the Church. Apart from the authority of the Church to proclaim those copies as authentic, there really is no Scripture left.

But as the Dead Sea Scrolls proved, what we have is accurate.

Really? How do we know the Dead Sea Scrolls are accurate? Did God write them? Are they the originals or are they simply older copies than we previously had? And the Dead Sea Scrolls say nothing with respect to the NT. How odd it is indeed that if Sola Scriptura were in effect during Apostolic times that they didnt preserve them in jars like the Jews did a millenium earlier. Odd indeed…

Not quite my friend - they merely agree on the SOURCE of their rule of faith, but the ESSENCE of the faith they disagree on profoundly.

Perhaps you could elaborate on some of those disagreements???
Yes, I most definitely can. Perhaps if you deny their existence I will elaborate them, but as it stands that would simply be a diversion. As it stands I am perfectly satisfied that I’ve demonstrated that :

• you overextended what can be logically taken from 2Tim3:16;
• you do believe men can be infallible when guided by God(despite claiming the contrary); and, most importantly that
• you cannot defend the plurality of theology resulting from SS - which contradicts its validity and you use of 2Tim 3:16 in support of it.

 

[Steve40]

The Bible didn’t come with a Table of Contents. It took a Church Council, Tradition, to give it to us infailably. The Protestants do not believe in Solo Scriptura either because they don’t have the whole Bible. By what authority do they declare what books belong in the Bilble? Without their tradition of men they wouldn’t even have a piece of the Sacred Scriptures. Why not accept the Tradition of God and accept the whole Bible?

Protestants reject the Word of God by rejecting Sacred Tradition which gives us Sacred Scripture. Catholics believe in Whole-A-Scriptora, not sola incomplete-a-Scriptora.

 

[ralphinal]

O.S.

My point is that without tradition being given weight, there would be no faith at all. Jesus told us ot go teach, not write it down. GO teach, not read. The Scriptures seem to me to be there to confirm that Jesus is the Christ and the SOn of God, in fact, God Himself. The faith is to be taught on its own. That seems to be how the early Church grew. People were taught about Jesus and they confirmed what was taught (see Acts) through the scriptures, but someone had to VERBALLY teach the pracitices of the faith. You may deny that, but show me where the rules are about songs in your praise of God? Or musical instuments? Or how a service is to be conducted. These things are traditions, but they are needed.

If I take Sola Scriptura at face value, for at least 5 years and maybe as long as 100, there were no Christians at all, as the New Testement wasn’t there. For another 400 years, it was shaky as there were a bunch of books floating around. For another 1100 years, the true faith was hidden because books were almost impossible to come by, even if you could read. So, Jesus founded a church that would not exist until after movable type came about.

The verse in Acts is 20:35 In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’" No Gospels have this. Either Jesus did not say it or he did and it was not important enough to make the cut. This is clearly a teaching on Faith and Morals, as it has to do with helping others.

 

[wanner47]

Originally Posted by Old Scholar View Post
I have spoken much on tradition and what it means. No tradition that pertains to faith or morals exists. As I have posted in several places, virtually all the early church fathers believed that if any tradition could not be supported by Scripture, it was false. That tells me that at first, the church did not believe any tradition pertained to anything that was important in our beliefs. God made sure we had everything we need and we are told that in Scripture.

If the bolded portion of your post is true, why are there so many different Christian denominations? If the Bible has “all we need,” shouldn’t we all be ONE denomination?

It’s very true that there’s no Tradition in the Catholic Church that does not have a Scriptural basis, nor are there any Catholic beliefs that contradict Scripture. I’m glad we agree on that point. It’s very odd, though, as several posters have pointed out, that the doctrine of “Scripture Alone” is NOT found in the Bible, nor does it have a Scriptural basis. Wouldn’t Protestants be violating your own standard, then?

Also, could you tell me, please, where the **word **“Trinity” is found in the Bible?

 

[JustinMartyr100]

IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH

‘If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures(OT), I will not beleive the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death and resurrection, and the FAITH which is by Him are undefiled monuments of antiquity…’
Epis Philadelphians 8,2

You need to read what yo posted. They are saying the Sctriptures are necessary. How can you read it any other way? You’ll get your list tomorrow. Bed time now…

I don’t have time to look address every quote that you bolded, but I wanted to address this one because it wasn’t quoted in it’s entirety. Here is what it says:

I therefore did what belonged to me, as a man devoted to unity. For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop. I trust [as to you] in the grace of Jesus Christ, who shall free you from every bond. And I exhort you to do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ. When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity; by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified.

So, Ignatius himself is not saying this at all. He said that when he heard other’s saying this, he replied to them “It is written.” He was being a good evangelist. He continues… “BUT TO ME”, and he places Jesus Christ over the ancient scriptures, effectively contrasting him from the people he is speaking about.

This quote is hardly an argument for Sola Scriptura.

(You can read the whole Epistle here: newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm)

 

[DarkMark]

I don’t have time to look address every quote that you bolded, but I wanted to address this one because it wasn’t quoted in it’s entirety. Here is what it says:

So, Ignatius himself is not saying this at all. He said that when he heard other’s saying this, he replied to them “It is written.” He was being a good evangelist. He continues… “BUT TO ME”, and he places Jesus Christ over the ancient scriptures, effectively contrasting him from the people he is speaking about.

This quote is hardly an argument for Sola Scriptura.

(You can read the whole Epistle here: newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm)

Well yet another post proving that Ignatius did advocate Sola Scriptural in this text .

Old Scholar needs to read the Fathers carefully, for if he did, he will realize that they did not believe in Sola Scriptural. They were 100% Catholics.

Saint Ignatius, Ambrose, Saint Augustine, Saint Irenaeus, Basil, and all the other Fathers did not believe in Sola Scriptural as I have proven.

 

[justinthemartyr]

As a protestant I believed it because that is what they taught me to believe.

“they” taught me, meaning the people in the churches(18 churches) Not the scriptures.

Why do I not believe it? Because it is not only NOT scriptural, but it fails the historical test of all church history previous to “THEY”, meaning individuals making up their own doctrine to benefit themselves and live an easier gospel evidently.

 

[Church_Militant]

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.This is rhetorical hooey sir.

The fact is that the Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura because it is unscriptural, and despite you assertions to the contrary you cannot make it scriptural without twisting the meaning of scripture.

They have no precedent for the belief we should give the same consideration to church tradition if it can’t be proved by Scripture.

The fact is that there is no precedent for Sola Scriptura and you cannot (just as you have not so far in this post provided) one.

There is more than ample scriptural support for the acceptance of tradition, not the least of which is the New Testament book of Jude.

Look at these verses from the letter of St. Jude, the next to last book in the New Testament.

Jude Chapter 1:9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.”

Where is that found in the Old Testament? Please show me chapter and verse.

Jude Chapter 1:14: It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, 15: to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Where is that in the Old Testament please? Again, I need chapter and verse?

Jude Chapter 1:9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.”…Jude Chapter 1:14: It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, 15: to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

2nd Timothy Chapter 3:8: As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;

The first 1st is quoting The Assumption of Moses. Not the Old Testament, yet the apostle Jude quotes it as a fact of belief.

The 2nd is quoting The Book of Enoch. Not the Old Testament, yet the apostle Jude quotes it as a fact of belief.

The 3rd is quoting the Book of Jannes and Jambres and not the Old Testament. (Go ahead and look…their names are nowhere found in the OT!), yet here again…St. Paul refers to something as fact that is not stated in the inspired canon. So then… he is clearly telling Timothy to study both scripture and traditional sources, since that is clearly shown here as apostolic practice.

So much for the idea that the apostles taught Sola Scriptura.

Then they claim that scripture is not sufficient in itself but scripture tells us otherwise.

By all means supply this supposed scriptural support for that. I believe you’ll supply scripture that is twisted all out of its context.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (1 Tim 3:16-17).

Scripture is said to be “God-breathed

.” Nothing else is given this designation.Then apply that test to the example verses I have supplied above.

That would then that St. Jude’s inclusion of the quotes is inspired and therefore does indeed imply that they are God-breathed since they supply facts not included in scripture yet accepted as fact by this apostolic author.

This term is never applied to “tradition

.” Paul gives this information to Timothy in order to instill confidence in the scriptures. Paul reminds Timothy of the “difficult” times coming upon them, during which all kinds of heresies and disobedience will arise. (3:1-9). Timothy is told to stand firm in the things he has learned. Things known from the scriptures. Scripture is “God-breathed” and therefore inspired and infallible and that can’t be applied to tradition.2nd Timothy 2:15 plainly says, “Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” Where in there does Paul even imply that that study is limited to just the scriptures?

(Cont’d)

 

[DarkMark]

I also what to comment further of Old Scholar claim:

'Since, therefore, the TRADITION from the apostles DOES thus EXIST in the Church, and is PERMAMENT AMONG US, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him’AH 3,5,1

And just further proof of Sola Scriptura. I appreciate your quotes as they show I am right.

No they do not show that you are right as I wrote like 3-4 pages before. In this text, Saint Irenaeus simply said to look at the OT texts that supported that Jesus is the Christ. The Apostles/Gospel Writers wrote down which OT texts spoke about Christ which why he said “revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him”. He wasn’t teaching Bible alone.

Thereby, I hardly think this text prove your Protestant doctrine of Sola-Scriptural. As I said no Church Father believed in Sola Scriptural.

Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).

 

[RobbyS]

You need to read what yo posted. They are saying the Sctriptures are necessary. How can you read it any other way? You’ll get your list tomorrow. Bed time now…

The Church canonized certain writings as supporting certain doctrines, such as the virginity of Mary. The Church included in the Canon only those Christianity writing that met a certain standard and excluded those that did not. This is proved not only by the fact that heretical writings were excluded but also by the fact than many orthodox writings were not included. The canon is indeed a list of foundational writings but chosen because they support orthodox teachings. We may speculate that Paul wrote other letters that are lost, that some letters were not actually written by him, that we don’t know who wrote the Gospels. In the end, it doesn’t matter. We accept the list of writings because tradition has so decided what the list shall include. The anti-Christians who promote other 'gospels," are clearly intent on discrediting this Canon because they want to discredit the Church, however one defines it. Historically speaking, the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches have strong claims because their institutional histories can be traced back at least to the Second Century. Undoubtedly there were Christian congregations that were unrelated to them, but we know little about them, except for those like the Marcionites who are identified by Orthodox writers. Lik they were suppressed after Christianity became the “official” religion of Rome, but hard to find their footprints.

 

[guanophore]

They have no precedent for the belief we should give the same consideration to church tradition if it can’t be proved by Scripture. Then they claim that scripture is not sufficient in itself but scripture tells us otherwise.

I am surprised to see you asserting these falsehoods here, OS. Scripture itself, as you well know, is based on the precedent of Sacred Tradition. We can see from the NT that both sacred writings and sacred oral traditions are equal in authority in the early church.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (1 Tim 3:16-17).

Scripture is said to be “God-breathed.” Nothing else is given this designation. This term is never applied to “tradition.” Paul gives this information to Timothy in order to instill confidence in the scriptures. Timothy is told to stand firm in the things he has learned. Things known from the scriptures. Scripture is “God-breathed” and therefore inspired and infallible and that can’t be applied to tradition.

The scriptures that Paul was talking about are OT scriptures. The NT was not written yet, and all the Gospel teachings were in oral form. I doubt any Sola today would try to defend Christian belief using only the OT!

It does not say that scripture is all that is needed. It says that scripture is useful in equipping the man of God. This is written to Timothy, who was taught the faith by people:

2 Tim 1:4-5
5 I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lo’is and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you.

This is the paradosis, the faithful handing on from one person to another the Sacred Tenents of the faith.

1 Tim 6:20

20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you."

These are the sacred traditions. The gift is not passed on by way of a book, but by the laying on of hands in the Apostolic Succession:

2 Tim 1:5-6
6 Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands;

The Church is also God Breathed:

John 20:22-23
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.”

It is the HS, passed by the breath of God that gives the Church authority.

What most Roman Catholics know about tradition is not correct. Once a Catholic tries to establish “tradition” to justify his beliefs, then he must show that it is **Roman Catholic Tradition **and not **Eastern Orthodox Tradition **that provides the truth. The Eastern Orthodox appeals to **exactly the same tradition **the Roman Catholic Church does and they **both can’t be right because they differ in their beliefs. ** That is something a Roman Catholic cannot overcome. Roman Catholics cannot appeal to scriptures in this case because they already claim scripture alone is insufficient, even though it tells us it is sufficient. He can’t appeal to the early church fathers for a Roman Catholic belief because the Eastern Orthodox appeal to the same fathers for their tradition. It is up to the Roman Catholic to show their church tradition is authoritative and that can’t be done.

I think you will find it very difficult to find differences between the Orthodox and the Roman doctrine. They have much more in common with each other than either of them have with Protestants.

The only reason the Catholic Church wanted to canonize the scriptures is because of heretical figures, such as Montanius and others and the only way to prove them wrong is by scripture. They also appealed to the same fathers for their beliefs.

Another sample of your revisionist history. I think when you examine the documents, you will see that refutation of heresies was only one of the reasons to declare the canon. It is primarily as a guide to the faithful, as is every conciliar decision. You are also in error that the “only way to prove them wrong” is by scripture. On the contrary, almost all the heresies (including today) are also based in scripture. Error occurs when the scripture is separated from the Sacred Tradition.

 

[guanophore]

If the Roman Church viewed oral tradition as authoritative and the church as infallible, what need would there have been to establish a ”rule” or “Canon” of scripture? In that case there would be no need for scripture at all; it would be quite sufficient to continue handing down teachings orally from one infallible ecclesial body to the next. There was no binding oral tradition given after the last apostle and New Testament writer laid down his pen. Nothing written after 100 A.D. has ever been accepted for the Canon.

There were a number of spurious documents floating around, and an authoritative source needed to make a prounoucement between them. Not every region that was getting spurious documents and heretical teachers had Apostolic ministry available to address this on the spot. The Church does not have the authority to invalidate what God has deemed needful, such as the scripture. On the contrary, a great deal of binding oral tradition has been given after 100 AD. One example of that is the canon of the NT.

Church tradition that does not pertain to matters of salvation, morals or faith are the only oral things handed down that could not be proven by scripture. The early church fathers agreed that tradition had to be supported by Scripture or it was invalid.
Old Scholar;3248400:

A Catholic, or an Eastern Orthodox or an Anglican may refer to how he follows “the church” or “tradition”, but he’s not able to define just what that is

. He can’t cite something authoritative or infallible, comparable to the evangelical’s 66 book canon.

This is just bald faced lies against Apostolic Succession faiths.