Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[DarkMark]

Old Scholar, you are merely twisting the Church Fathers to believe what you believe. I start with AMBROSE—> BASIL

I do not wish that credence be given us; let the Scripture be quoted. Not of myself do I say: ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ but I hear it; I do not feign but I read what we all read… (“The Sacrament of the Incarnation of our Lord,” 3:14, The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 44 [Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1963], p. 224)

On consideration…of the reason wherefore men have so far gone astray, or that many – alas! – should follow diverse ways of belief concerning the Son of God, the marvel seems to be, not at all that human knowledge has been baffled in dealing with superhuman things, but that it has not submitted to the authority of the Scriptures. (“Of the Christian Faith,” IV:1, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. X, p. 262)

I see nothing here that proves Bible alone. Catholics have no problem saying the Bible has Authority to defined doctrines, which what Ambrose is saying. He did not say that there were no Traditions of the Church.

And more from Athanasius:

The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.)

The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written. (Exhort. ad Monachas)

                     "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.

St. Athanasius: “[T]hat of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation, we may easily see, if we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ’s enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth…”
[6] Orationes contra Arianos 3:28 (A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:409St. 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?
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
And more from Augustine:

In those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture, all those things are found which pertain to faith and morals. (De Doct. Chr. 2:9)

Whatever you hear from them [the Scriptures], let that be well received by you. Whatever is without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud. (De Pastore, 11)

Saint Augustine
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
“[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]).

“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).

“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]).

Saint Augustine believe in Bible alone? Yea Right!

I believe you are misunderstanding the Fathers belief that the Bible has authority, but also there is Traditions. Looks you haven’t study the Fathers afterall.

St Iraenus did not believe in Bible alone. All he said is if the OT did not speak of Christ, he will not believe the Gospel. He did not say believe OT + NT Alone!

I will explain the others in a bit.

 

[Newbie2]

Curious, then, as to why Jesus didn’t have a scribe or have the apostles write down ***everything ***that he said and did, isn’t it?

(In response to post #60)

 

[Old_Scholar]

I have no difficulties believing that Paul, James, Peter, John, Andrew, Matthew, Bartholomew, Matthias, Barnabas, Jude, et al. spread the Gospel primarily through the use of their voices and not the written word. The letters of Paul are dwarfed by the hundreds and hundreds of hours he spent preaching from the oral tradition passed on from the Apostles he knew.

What did Paul have to say about faith or morals that he did not write down?

If you deny oral tradition, then, by extension, Paul’s own writings must be denied, since those emanated from the teaching of the Twelve, and not Scripture.

Repeat above question…

The only difficulty is in the cognitive dissonance that makes possible your skipping the first several decades of Christianity - the ones most proximate to Christ’s actual time on earth - to find an established rule of faith.

**I have not skipped the first several decades of Christianity. I have, and am still studying, studied the early church fathers extensively and I find that they believed that nothing that could not be substantiated by written Scripture should be considered but should be rejected as false. All one has to do to see this is to read the early fathers and what they wrote.

It was around the 4th century that things started to change. It is apparent by the writings of the fathers of that time that they were beginning to stray from Scripture and setting new traditions that they were beginning to call “Sacred Tradition.” This is a farce.**

All of Scriptural is beneficial for our faith just like all high-fiber cereal is good for my colon. Does that mean nothing else is good for my health? No offense, but this is basic reading comprehension. What is implied does not convey universal value over all other things, but that, totally of itself, Scripture is beneficial.

There is a great deal of knowledge that can be learned from the tradition of the early church. A lot of history is available there and the Bible is not considered a historical book. The fathers recognized the historicity of the traditions and even the apocryphal books that they recommended reading them, even though they did not consider them inspired.

Without tradition, how would we know how the church survived during that period of time? How would we know of the criminality of many of the early church leaders?

It is only when someone tries to change the teaching of Christ and the apostles by creating a “tradition” that it becomes false. I suggest you read the early church fathers and see for yourself what it was like in the beginning. You will see why Martin Luther rebelled, at the risk of his life.

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

I don’t have my Bible handy, but it is clearly written in Scripture, that it would take a book the size of the world (paraphrased) to document everything Jesus said and did.

Much as any newspaper or book might record history, every little detail isn’t captured.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old “Scholar” -
Please stop your Hit and Run game. Answer the replies to your attacks.
That being said, here is what JESUS has to say about the importance of the authority of the Church. When you can refute this, I’ll listen to your arguments as to why we accept Tradition as well as Scripture:

Matt. 18:16-18
***“If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. ***
***If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ ***If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Is there a question here?

 

[Old_Scholar]

If God is perfect, why does He have to exist as three persons instead of just one?

I don’t believe a dissertation on the Trinity is appropriate for this thread.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Hi Old Scholar and God bless -

Where are those Church Father’s quotes?

Also, the Catholic faith agrees that Tradition must not oppose scripture or it is invalid, even today.

That’s not what everyone is trying to tell me here.

BTW - did you know that the Jews established thier canon of 66 books in the year 90ad? That’s when the other books not used in the Protestant canon where removed. Do you understand what that means? It means the books used in the Catholic canon, as well as every other Apostolic church, were used by the Apostles because the Jewish canon wasn’t invented yet.

**Sorry but that is not true. The Jewish Canon had been completed for over 400 years by the time of Jamnia. You must remember what the canon is. The Old Testament, althought it was not called that, was completed and in widespread use after the last prophet, Malachi. That was around 400 BC. The definition of a canon is that it be accepted, in use and closed in order to allow no other books. Their canon had 22 books and they correspond exactly to our Old Testament of 39 books.

The reason for the Council of Jamnia was that there were many Jews who were converting to Christianity, especially around Alexandria, and some of them wanted to include the apocrypha books and others did not. In any event, the Jewish people do not accept the Council of Jamnia.**

The Rabbinic Council of Jamnia (90ad) also expelled anyone teaching christianity from the synogogues under pain of death. They removed those books because they taught things such as an afterlife and saints in heaven and prayers for the dead. There are Jews today who say that there is no afterlife because there is NO part of thier canon that says there is.

Protestants use the Jewish canon, not the christian canon, ironically the canon established at the council that officially rejected christianity.

Did you know also that establishment of the biblical canon was a 400 year process? For instance, some churches used the Didache, Clement’s First Letter, the Acts of Paul, the Acts of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, and man yothers epistles in thier scripture readings. Many churches disputed the 2nd letter of Peter, the 2nd & 3rd letters of John, the Revelation of John was hotly disputed (even Luther wanted it out) Jude and Hebrews were very much in doubt.

To this day the Ethiopian church uses 1st Clement and the Didache because they were so isolated when the canon was being established. And they reject Revelation.

Here’s a nice little cross reference chart with links so you can do a little research yourself…ntcanon.org/table.shtml

Subrosa

**While it took almost 300 years for the Catholics to canonize the Bible, the facts are that the last book written for the New Testament was written around 90 A.D. and nothing that has been written since then is included. The books were all available to all the churches since that time and they were widely circulated and used. While it is true some of the other books being circulated in those days were also being used in some churches, none of them claimed inspiration of God and in most every case, it isn’t even known who wrote them.

All the church did was make the Bible official, since it had been in use for so long.**

 

[Old_Scholar]

Logic. Logic. Logic.

For example, Scripture does not actually explain HOW we are to worship. THere are some generaltities, but not line by line. Read the Letters of Paul without the theology. They are corrections on how to conduct life, worship, or how to believe. Logic says that Churches were founded and people taught orally then the letters were sent to correct errors.

How was the faith taught before anything was written? Even the most liberal dater puts the first books around 35 a.d.

How big is your Bible? Is it man portable? If so, then you are not carrying the origional. Was it printed by a machine? Again, you have a new one. The old ones were expensive, bulky, hand-written scrolls. It is illogical to think that people carried the whole book everywhere they went. Therefore, the teaching had to be done a different way.

One more thing, in Acts of the Apostles, Paul uses a quote from Jesus that is no where in the Bible. No one called him on it. Where did he get it?

**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.**

 

[Old_Scholar]

How can the “effect” define what the “cause” is. The chain of events goes like this:
Jesus taught the gospel → The apostles that their disciples teach the gospel → some of the teachings are recorded in writing → The Catholic Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit determines which writing will make up the Bible.

All this while the apostles and their successors contiune to teach what Jesus taught.

A verse, which I cannot find, declares that not all the Jesus taught was recorded in writing.

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.

 

[Old_Scholar]

But so is most of what you wrote, just your opinion. You have not demonstrated that any of it contradicting the teachings of the Church are factual or true.

But if I quote someone, I give the citation.

 

[DarkMark]

And still more from Basil:

“Therefore, let God inspired Scripture decide between us; and on
whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth” ()

A previous poster commented on this. “In harmony with” does not Bible alone.

Basil the Great

“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).

Well thats was clear!

And of course this is a quote from Hippolytus about Scripture:

There is one God, whom we do not otherwise acknowledge, brethren, but out of the Holy Scriptures. For as he that would possess the wisdom of this world cannot otherwise obtain it than to read the doctrines of the philosophers; so whosoever of us will exercise piety toward God cannot learn this elsewhere but out of the Holy Scriptures. Whatsoever, therefore, the Holy Scriptures do preach, that let us know, and whatsoever they teach, that let us understand. (Hip. tom. 3, Bibliotheque Patrium, ed. Colonna)

And Yet he believe that Sacred Traditions is also in the Church, as I pointed out. Thereby, you have proven that he believe Traditions are not important.

You are still quoting reliance on the Scriptures.

Of course Cyril made it a little clearer here:

Not even the least of the divine and holy mysteries of the faith ought to be handed down without the divine Scriptures. Do not simply give faith to me speaking these things to you except you have the proof of what I say from the divine Scriptures. For the security and preservation of our faith are not supported by ingenuity of speech, but by the proofs of the divine Scriptures. (Cat. 4)

Also notice: The Quotes which I quoted said that the Catholic Church has authority to determined what books belong in the Bible.

“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition” (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).

Everything a Christian saids about Christ can be proven through Scriptures (OT).

 

[GoneFishin]

There is a great deal of knowledge that can be learned from the tradition of the early church. A lot of history is available there and the Bible is not considered a historical book. The fathers recognized the historicity of the traditions and even the apocryphal books that they recommended reading them, even though they did not consider them inspired.

Without tradition, how would we know how the church survived during that period of time? How would we know of the criminality of many of the early church leaders?

It is only when someone tries to change the teaching of Christ and the apostles by creating a “tradition” that it becomes false. I suggest you read the early church fathers and see for yourself what it was like in the beginning. You will see why Martin Luther rebelled, at the risk of his life.

You nailed it right on the head there…It is only when someone tries to change the teaching of Christ and the apostles by creating a “tradition” that it becomes false. Martin Luther decided to Protest the Church and change the original traditions and doctrines making his beliefs FALSE, all because he did not like them and were not convineint for him at the time. It does not make sense If Luther was right dont you think the rest of the church fathers of his time would have followed him as well, but they didnt:thumbsup: They knew he was wrong!

 

[Newbie2]

** Tradition does not have anything to do with faith…
**

You’ve been harping against Catholic Tradition having much to do with faith, and now you say it has nothing to do with faith.

Oh…I get it.

You’re saying that you don’t agree with Catholic view of Tradtions or that you think it’s wrong. Why didn’t you say so, rather than misstating the Catholic position on faith and Tradition?

Oh…I get it. You don’t understand it. That’s OK. Read Yves Congar.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

**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.

Can you tell us all of something that is considered tradition that is beneficial to us and not included in Scripture?**

 

[ricmat]

**
Can you tell us all of something that is considered tradition that is beneficial to us and not included in Scripture?**

The Trinity.

 

[DarkMark]

Yep! Scripture was handed down. Here is what Origen really thought about Scripture:

In which (the two Testaments) every word that appertains to God may be required and discussed; and all knowledge may be understood out of them. But if anything remain which the Holy Scripture does not determine, no other third Scripture ought to be received for authorizing any knowledge or doctrine; but that which remains we must commit to the fire, that is, we will reserve it for God. For in this present world God would not have us to know all things. (Orig. in Lev., hom. 5, 9:6)

“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).

Since Sacred Scriptures teach Sacred Traditions (1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6), why will Origin believe otherwise?

No man ought, for the confirmation of doctrines, to use books which are not canonized Scriptures. (Tract. 26 in Matt.)

Origin believe the Deutrocanon books were Scriptures. All Origin said was that no should use any Scripture that is not canonized to prove doctrines (many was using books that the Church has not canonized as Scriptures). No reason to believe that Origin believe in Bible alone.

As all gold, whatsoever it be, that is without the temple, is not holy; even so every notion which is without the divine Scripture, however admirable it may appear to some, is not holy, because it is foreign to Scripture. (Hom. 25 in Matt.)

Consider how imminent their danger is who neglect to study the Scriptures, in which alone the discernment of this can be ascertained. (in Rom. 10:16)

Now where do you Bible alone? In the second quotation, he simply say to study Scriptures. Does that prove Bible alone? I alreadly proven that Origin believe that there were Sacred Traditions.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

**Is that why five large groups broke off from the Roman Catholics when Bible were available in English and they began to read what they actually said? Or could it be that for hundreds of years, the mass was always in Latin and no one could understand what was being said?

This only happened after the Bible was published in the vernacular.**

 

[DarkMark]

Irenaeus

“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).

…

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1–2).

So clearly, Irenaeus did not believe in Bible alone.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Don’t dodge the question, OS.

**I’m not dodging the question. You have asked a wierd question. I personally believe the Bible is the inspired inerrant word of God and He has protected it from error all these years, even though many have been trying to change it with their ‘traditions.’ God still protects it.

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

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

Then apparently you don’t believe the Bible…