Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[Old_Scholar]

What did Tertullian believed?

“Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as ‘the sent.’ Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judaea, and rounding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner rounded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (rounded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality,–privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.”
Tertullian, On Prescription Against the Heretics 20

“Irenaeus and Tertullian point to the church tradition as the authoritative locus of the unadulterated teaching of the apostles, they cannot longer appeal to the immediate memory, as could the earliest writers. Instead they lay stress on the affirmation that this teaching has been transmitted faithfully from generation to generation. One could say that in their thinking, apostolic succession occupies the same place that is held by the living memory in the Apostolic Fathers.”
Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church p.188

How can Old Scholar believe in Bible alone, when Scriptures never make that claim? How can Old Scholar believe in Bible alone, when the Apostle Paul told his followers to believe traditions + Scriptures? How can Old Scholar tried to proved that some Church Fathers believe in Bible alone, when all the Church Fathers disagree with his Protestant doctrine (i.e., Faith Alone, No Real Presence in the Eucharist, No Apostolic Succession, No Pope, etc)?

**Just make sure you post everything Tertullian had to say about Scripture…

“But there is no evidence of this, because Scripture says nothing.” … “The Scripture says nothing of this, although it is not in other instances silent” **…“I do not admit what you advance of your own apart from Scripture.” ****(Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 6; ch 7)

Here he is saying he doesn’t believe it if it can’t be substantiated with Scripture…

 

[MarcoPolo]

Why do Catholics reject Sola Scriptura? Simple. Because Sola Scriptura is itself blatantly non-scriptural as well as non-traditional and most importantly because it is false doctrine.

This is the correct answer. The Timothy passage says Scripture is God-breathed and profitable…Amen!..the word “only” is not there. To say so would be to “add” to Scripture.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Jesus condems specific customs but in terms of the historical fact of oral tradition (Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians etc,) the bible commands tradition to us.

Paul says the scriptures that are inspired are great, but he never said the scriptures, the scriptures and nothing but the scriptures.

Paul says scripture AND traditon 2 Thess 2:14
He hands traditon on 2 Thess 3:6
Luke writes parts of it down Luke 1:1+
Early Christians followed tradition Acts 2:42
lots of things Jesus did aren’t written down John 21:25
John didn’t write everyting down John 20:30
The Holy Spirit will teach things to the Church in later times John 14:26
“Word” in scripture is usually oral 1 Thess 2:13
Some bits of scripture hard to understand 2 Peter 3:16
private interpreation of scripture is condemned 2 Peter 1:20
Guidance needed to understand scripture Acts 8:31; Heb 5:12
Who interprits it then? The Church Matt 18:17
Some Gospel quoted facts not in the Old Testament John 3:14 and Elijah’s prayer for eg James 5:17-18

Romans 10:17 Faith then, is by hearing: and hearing is by the word of Christ.

Why would Jesus put all his eggs in the Sola Scripture basket when upon his glorious assencion into heaven it is about another 1500 years till books can be printed (printing press) and about 1800+ years till most of the western world is able to read - becomes litterate. In some parts of the word illiteracy is still very high, how do these people know God? Oral preaching.

**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…?**
Martin Luther said “We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Roman Catholics), that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.” (Ch 16 St John commentary)

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.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Sorry, just though of something.

Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants all have different Old Testament cannons. If Jesus wanted Sola Scriptura wouldn’t you think He have told us which are the inspired books.

When Jesus debated using scipture He used whatever his opponent consided scripture. St. James in his epistle quotes the book of Enoch and the Assumtion of Moses.

Perhaps maybe the Catholic Church decided which books made up the Old and New Testaments in the late 300s, guided by the Holy Spirit and never changing this cannon. Matt 18:17 / John 14:26

You need to study history a little more. The Jews canonized the Old Testament about 200 years before Christ. It hasn’t changed since, except for the Catholics trying to add to it.

 

[ricmat]

Old Scholar - I get the impression that you believe that Catholics do not use or believe in the bible at all. It seems like you’re saying that the game is either sola scriptura, or no scriptura.

That’s not the case here. Of course we use the bible. The catechism, which is a practical guide to life and morals, has dozens of scriptural references on each page.

The Mass is totally based on scripture. And if you go to daily Mass, then you get to hear most of the bible over a 2 year period.

And the Liturgy of the Hours which all clergy and many laypeople practice is mostly scripture as well.

I don’t believe you answered the following in post #3:

“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).

A main point here is that “the scriptures” weren’t even written down at the beginning, and there was ONLY oral tradition. And then there’s also the very last thing said in the very last Gospel:

Joh 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
So apparently everything was not written down.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

You need to study history a little more. The Jews canonized the Old Testament about 200 years before Christ. It hasn’t changed since, except for the Catholics trying to add to it.

And yet there was still conflict! See: Pharisees and Saducees, one of which believed in a final resurrection and another which did not. There is even a reference to a situation in Tobit, where a woman was married several times, and each time her husband died on their wedding night. Thus, the woman had (six, I think) husbands total. At the final resurrection, which of them would be married to the woman? This was a way for the Saducees to at once damage Jesus and the Pharisees, by presenting a paradoxical question. Btw, if anyone could reference that Gospel passage, I’d be much obliged

 

[Old_Scholar]

Yet we have God through Jesus breathing on the apostles after the resurrection. These are the very same men who started all the traditions and oral traditions that have already been cited here many times. These are the very same men who attest to the necessity of tradition and oral tradition.

These men never wrote of the necessity of oral tradition as you know it. The traditions they wrote about were completely different from what is called tradition today.

Old Scholar it seems your fundamental issue is that you do not accept the power of The Holy Spirit nor have faith in Jesus’ teaching about the same. Yet this seems curious and perhaps even irrational since you would trust the early Church and God to hold truth safely via oral tradition for 400 years then at the instant The Church assembles the early bible you would refuse to listen to a single word their successor’s have to say. Instead you would then forget everything you heard and rely solely on the things that they wrote down! Does God’s word only become trustable when some scribe manages to sharpen his quill and get it all down on paper?

You need to know a little more about the Bible. It was available before the 2nd century. The last book was written around 90 A.D. and nothing has been changed or added to it since then. It has been available to all the churches at that time and ever since. Many of the books had been incirculation for more than 40 years by the time the New Testament was completed.

It just seems very peculiar that you can trust a closer source (bible) that is constructed by men who are not even in the scriptures to tell us what is scripture. How do you know the bible is not a lie?

Do you think it is a lie?

At some point you have to admit that being a Christian requires a faith in God at every step in the Church formation (including its scripture and its cannon). Picking what source you want to believe would be merely a coin toss except for the fact that what tradition brings us are many consistent written accounts of the persecution of the early Church. Faith in both tradition and The Church then becomes compelled through the people who lived and died for the faith. Thus tradition, including the writing of the bible are written in both human blood and divine blood. That is consistent with everything prophesied in the old testament as well.

Either God is with us in His Church through Her teachings or He is not. If you suggest that God is not with us, then please point to where you think He is? And please don’t try to point to whatever version of the bible you carry in your hand since Jesus did not suffer and die for a book - he died for you and me.

I say God lives and breathes in each of us who keep ALL His teachings; and that means God lives within those who know how to read and in those who do not know how to read but can hear The Truth and taste and see what is Good (Eucharist).

I don’t have any problems with that. That is why God gave us His written Word and why we have His rules written down. No one can change them, regardless of how hard they try. We don’t have to rely on what someone tells us because people can lie but God’s truth will never lie. It is the same today as it was when He wrote it. We have it so that we know what it is and history has shown it has never changed.

ames

 

[Old_Scholar]

Because it’s not in the Bible.

QED.

Oy weh, dies goyischer kopf…

Actually it IS the Bible.

 

[GoneFishin]

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 kept the Bibles from the public for a reason, they must have known that people would try to interpret it themselves and do more harm than good. Most people of the time did not know how to read anyways so the books were useless? The books were read to the people. The fact that the technology of the time (the printing press) was invented has nothing to do with living in the dark and it actually shows how putting a bible in certain peoples hands can be dangerous. The truth has always been with the church, you just chose to protest it.

 

[ricmat]

And yet there was still conflict! See: Pharisees and Saducees, one of which believed in a final resurrection and another which did not. There is even a reference to a situation in Tobit, where a woman was married several times, and each time her husband died on their wedding night. Thus, the woman had (six, I think) husbands total. At the final resurrection, which of them would be married to the woman? This was a way for the Saducees to at once damage Jesus and the Pharisees, by presenting a paradoxical question. Btw, if anyone could reference that Gospel passage, I’d be much obliged

Tob 3:8 For she had been married to seven husbands, but the wicked demon Asmodeus killed them off before they could have intercourse with her, as it is prescribed for wives. So the maid said to her: "You are the one who strangles your husbands! Look at you! You have already been married seven times, but you have had no joy with any one of your husbands.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar,

BTW - Protestant do not agree on what their Rule of Faith is. Perhaps another thread.

There are different Protestant faiths just as there are different Catholic faiths. Do all the Catholics believe the same thing? No!

 

[ricmat]

There are different Protestant faiths just as there are different Catholic faiths. Do all the Catholics believe the same thing? No!

The Catholic faith is clearly defined. Some who call themselves Catholic don’t believe all of it. I guess that actually makes them Protestants (or the polite term, cafeteria Catholics).

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

It just seems very peculiar that you can trust a closer source (bible) that is constructed by men who are not even in the scriptures to tell us what is scripture. How do you know the bible is not a lie?

Do you think it is a lie?

Don’t dodge the question, OS.

 

[Dauphin]

Actually it IS the Bible.

And how do you know what the Bible is? On what authority do you conclude that the books you have are the right ones?

If sola scriptura is true, why didn’t Christ just hand the apostles the King James Bible before ascending into heaven? Why did he entrust human beings with the authority to teach? When does he say that what they teach is true only insofar as it is written down? Where in the Bible is it recorded that Christ instructs that a book should be written that contains everything there is to know about the faith, and that can be interpreted correctly by every individual Christian without a need for authority?

I’ve never heard satisfying answers to these questions, which is why I regard sola scriptura as one of the most ludicrous of the protestant doctrines.

 

[Dauphin]

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.

You must be kidding! If the Church had somehow managed to mass-produce Bibles for public consumption, who do you think would have read them? There was virtually no literacy among the general public; most people wouldn’t have known what to do with a Bible.

This is one of the reasons that sola scriptura is one of the most ridiculous protestant doctrines. It means, essentially, that if you can’t read, you can’t know your faith. If you can’t examine the Bible for yourself, you have to depend on other people who have absolutely no authority to teach.

If sola scriptura is true, then Christ left his people with no rule of faith for well over a thousand years, and that rule of faith was only publicly available when literacy became widespread. It’s absurd.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

There is precedent - Moses’ seat would be a precedent for an authority apart from Scripture.

Maybe you have a different understanding of what Mose’s seat was. There was no authority connected with the seat. It was simply an altar or podium constructed of wood. It was a place where a spokesman would proclaim the law of Moses when the need arose. Other than that, there was no spiritual equation with it. Christ here is merely saying that the Pharisees were to proclaim the law. They were hypocrites.

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 God breathed - we all give that an Amen! The mind that you use to read and interpret Scripture is not infallible, and that is the problem with SS - it pretends that Scripture “alone” communicates a message when, in fact, it does not. It requires something apart from it to interpret and articulate that message.

No man has an infallible mind but Scripture is infallible. Nothing else is. The Scriptures tell us they can be understood and we can understand them without having to be told what they say. If we disagree on some Scriptures, then we have those we can go to and discuss the issue. Likewise, the church is not infallible. As long as man is involved infallibility is not possible.

That’s why we put it in our native languages!

Paul’s PRIMARY means of delivering the FULL truth to Timothy was by SPEAKING to him. Paul only wrote the letter “in case (he) was delayed” in visiting SO THAT Timothy would “know how to behave” in the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the Truth.

Paul wrote Timothy in order to give him the rules and guidelines on what to preach. He specifically told Timothy to be careful and not let men change the doctrines the Scriptures provide. That was the biggest problem in the church then and finally it appeared unstopable when Rome stepped in.

This is a remarkable ironic claim for a SS adherent to make IMHO. If, in fact, 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? That, my friend, is a question worth reflecting upon before attempting to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye. There is no profound disunity there. Certainly not like the disunity that is present not only between SS adherents and either of those ancient churches, but also among SS adherents themselves. 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. 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.

Here I believe you are actually correct! But the thing you fail to realize is that what you call “Scripture” is not, in fact, “Scripture” in the strictest sense. 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.

Correct, but that doesnt mean that Scripture serves no purpose.
.
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???

My rule of faith, like every non-Apostolic disciple of Christ, is faith in Christ as taught by His Church; corroborated by Scripture, by history and by the Saints. And this I believe “because (I) know whom (I) learned it from.”(cf 1Tim 2)

Quod non est biblicum non est Theologicum

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

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.

There is no amibiguity, indeed. Especially in the fact that it does not say “sufficient”- just “useful”.

 

[CentralFLJames]

[At least all the Protestants believe about 95% of the same things.

I don’t think the real numbers support you here and given the nature of protestants to reject any central authority I think you automatically distance yourself from them in their insistence to have a variety of protestant “flavors” with no self appointed spokesperson to attempt to census them.
Protestantism (Wiki):

(ref: Protestantism (Wiki)

)
‘The actual number of distinct denominations is hard to calculate, but has been estimated to be over thirty thousand. Various ecumenical movements have attempted cooperation or reorganization of Protestant churches, according to various models of union, but divisions continue to outpace unions. Most [ed: >51%?] denominations share common beliefs in the major [ed. >51% of minimal doctrine is still pragmatically nill] aspects of the Christian faith, while differing in many secondary doctrines. **There are “over 33,000 **denominations in 238 countries” and every year there is a net increase of around 270 to 300 denominations. According to David Barrett’s study (1970), there are 8,196 denominations within Protestantism’.

No, in my own opinion Protestantism is accelerating toward the melt-down of anarchy; not hard to predict as a natural consequence of Sola Scriptura.

The remedy? Either 1) Re-enter into communion with The Catholic Church or 2) Wait for God to seperate the tares from the wheat and individually gamble if one’s private interpretation is seen as a weed or wheat. 3) Making friends with a Catholic and cover your bases by asking for them to pray for you often.

Protestants please please see my signature link to the Chaplet of Divine Mercy! This is a very short prayer and it has promises of final mercy at the hour of death.

Personally, if I had nothing else to go on other than credibility and longevity and pedigree I’d put my bets on The Catholic Church with the understanding that while private interpretation is dubious at best God DOES hold us privately accountable for our own conduct. The difference in The Catholic Church though is that we admit we can’t do anything without God’s grace and His 7 sacraments. Excepting for Baptism that leaves protestants playing 7 card stud with only 1 of the 7 cards and no ante other than calling on the first round with “Jesus Saves” and passing on everything else. Not a winning strategy in my opinion…

James
[/quote]

 

[Newbie2]

Sigh…here we go again.

The simple and complete answer is that Catholics accept Tradition and Scripture, not Scripture only and not Tradition to the exclusion of Scripture. Why? Read Yves Congar’s The Meaning of Tradition.

He explains Tradition and it’s relationship to Scripture clearly.

Then get back to us if you don’t quite get it yet.

 

[Old_Scholar]

tm30

If Sola Scriptura is the proper rule of faith, why didn’t Jesus express this? In fact, Jesus spoke quite often about “hearing” - nothing about “reading”.

Jesus continually used the phrase, “it is written.” He understood Scripture and the value of it. While He was on earth, of course it was spoken.

Additionally, if Sola Scriptura is the proper rule of faith, you must be asserting that the early Church was rife with error, since the Gospels, themselves, post-date even the letters of Paul. Therefore, since there was no “New Testament”, or even “Gospels”, there was no rule of faith?

**When Christ commissioned Paul, Paul immediately began preaching what the Holy Spirit had taught him. As he set up churches and ordained men, it began to be obvious that men were changing what was being taught by him and the other apostles. Whether God told the apostles to began writing or not we will never know but Christ told John to write down those things so that they could not be misunderstood.

That is why the Scriptures were written and while the apostles were still alive the writings were declared Scripture by the apostles. Peter declared them Scripture and said so in hi epistle. By the time the last apostle had died, everything had been written down so there could be no excuse to get anything wrong.

To believe that God has not protected His word during all these years would to show a lack of faith in God. To believe that the oral teaching could have been kept true all these years is a little ridiculous as well. Men have never been able to tell a story straight and the infallibility died with the apostles. No one has the authority they had and never will again.**