Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[Chancellare]

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. **

It is not correct for you to start defining ‘tradition’ because you are not the holder of the correct definition of “Holy Tradition”.

It is not correct for you to say that both (RC and EO) are wrong simply because they ‘differ in their beliefs’ because you are not the holder of the ‘correct belief’.

By whose authority do you speak about “Holy Tradition”? From Scriptures or from your pastor?

 

[Church_Militant]

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.The fact that we differ from our Orthodox friends does not indict our beliefs, because in fact they differ even more greatly from your own errant doctrines, and if your point was valid then you would be Orthodox and not whatever modern post reformation faith community that you are.

As to “**Roman Catholic Tradition **”, the fact is that we share those same traditions from apostolic times and that you do not just exemplifies again that this actually indicts the doctrines of reformation and all their modern descendants.

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.

Not so, since we can compare scripture with scripture even by the rules of SS and still find it wanting and reject it. The real problem (for you) is that the moment that you embraced SS, you allow everyone else the same “freedom” to read and interpret the Word of God and in so doing, I as a Catholic study and find the errors of your teaching and then reject it in favor of the Catholic teachings which are both more scriptural and more logical.

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.

Fallacious premise and therefore invalid.

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.

Cite a source for this assertion because I know objective scholar or author who would make this claim. This may be your opinion, but that is all it is unless you can support it from historical documents. I don’t think you can.

They also appealed to the same fathers for their beliefs. 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.This is nothing but rhetorical supposition without substance. You grossly err in your understanding of Catholic teaching concerning divine revelation.

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.**As usual, no supporting citations. Why would be buy into something like this just because you assert it to be true? You can assert the moon is green cheese with the same support and authority…
(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

Protestants agree on what their rule of faith is. They follow a 66 book canon of scripture.

No, they do not. Not all Protestants by any means. In fact, as you chose to try to use the Orthodox against the Catholic Church earlier, I can now do the same to you to refute your point. Also I know that many n-Cs actually don’t use a 66 book canon.

But what is the “rule of faith” among those who reject sola scriptura

? Not only do they disagree in their interpretations of their rule of faith, as *sola scriptura *advocates do, but they also disagree among themselves about what their rule of faith is to begin with.This is a specious argument to begin with.
ARTICLE 2
THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

Catholics disagree among themselves about just which papal decrees, council rulings, etc., are infallible and which ones are not.

Here you try to make a case from the discussion and debate of things but faithful Catholics will agree with St. Augustine when he said, “I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

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 invalid off the top because none of the above believe Sola Scriptura to begin with and because we all reject it as unscriptural, there is no reason for us to attempt to use it to appeal.

This is a good question, then, to opponents of sola scriptura

. What is your rule of faith, and how can you verify it and interpret it without facing the same difficulties that you criticize in association with sola scriptura?No…it’s not. Witness the vast amount of documenting footnotes in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I will list the early fathers and their views on *Sola Scriptura *

in another post.Knock yourself out…

Please—a nice Christian thread.

Always…

 

[stfrancisway]

The Trinity is covered quite well in scripture.

The “word” Trinity does not appear in the Holy Scriptures. Check out the Greek. Check out the English. Trinity is never ever mentioned in the Bible. OS, You seem to be a intelligent person. Why didn’t you just ask the Church what she believes?She doesn’t have anything to hide.

95 “It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.” CCC paragraph 95

How can I argue against Sacred Scriptures? How Can I Argue against Sacred Tradition? How can I argue against Magisterium of the Church, this equals the whole deposit of faith. That is why the Roman Catholic Church has the “Fullness” of faith. Catholics do not reject the Scriptures and only keep the Tradition and Magisterium. All three parts have to be in agreement with each other. The Church can’t proclaim something that can be rejected by Scriptures, Tradition, and Magisterium. All three have to be in agreement “Unity.”

You see, we would not have the Dogma of the Trinity without Scriptures, Tradition, and Magisterium.

 

[fellowChristian]

Mark 16:15

15And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

Mark 3:14

14And He appointed twelve, so that they would be with Him and that He could send them out to preach,

Luke 10:16
16"The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me."

Luke 24:47
47And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Acts 2:3-4
3And there appeared to them** tongues **as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them.

4And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

Acts 15:27
27"Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth.

Romans 10:8
8But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”–that is, the word of faith which we are** preaching, **

Romans 10:17
17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

Titus 1:3
3but at the proper time manifested, even His word, in the proclamation with which I was entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior,

**Isaiah 59:21 **
21"As for Me, this is My covenant with them," says the LORD: “My Spirit which is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring’s offspring,” says the LORD, **“from now and forever.” **

Oral Tradition also.

 

[fellowChristian]

**Matthew 2:23 **

23and came and lived in a city called Nazareth This was to fulfill what was **spoken **through the prophets: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

The prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.
**
Scripture Catholic**
scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html

Christmas is not in the Bible either.

 

[JamesN]

The excellent two-part article linked below presents very clear arguments for the fallacy of the sola scriptura doctrine.

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9212clas.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9301clas.asp

 

[CentralFLJames]

Old Scholar, to make a point at the absurdity of Sola Scriptura let me make an analogy you might be able to better identify with.

Suppose you lived alone far removed and seperated from most other people. A beloved family member has become ill and appears to be dieing. On your shelf is a thick medical book that somone has given you long ago. You often had read this book but lacking pictures and illustrations it was hard to understand what some of the terms meant and what not.

Examining your sick family member you see that she has a visible tumor on her neck that is interfering with her breathing. So you thumb through the medical book and come to a description about tumors and procedures for removing tumors. You are desperate and you remember that you had an old emergency medical kit that you picked up at a flea market that had a scalpel, some anesthesia, bandages, antiseptic and suturing materials.

The situation is desperate and you start reading the medical book on how to remove tumors but you have never done this before and your hands are shaky. You seem to have everything you need but you can’t attempt the procedure since you might do more harm than good - yet she is dieing before your very eyes.

What do you do?

Well OS it should be clear from this illustration that we can not rely on scripture as a do it yourself “cook book” or a “self help” sort of book. True, everything apparently necessary for saving us is in the book but without being taught or having gained experience from somone else that has passed down their knowledge its tantamount to suicide (or murder) to rely on one’s own insights in interpreting how to apply all the principals. We can get the basics for sure (prayer, faith, example, conviction, persevering in the face of failure, etc.) but its really might as well be all not there at all if we can’t discern how it all inter-relates.

If Sola Scriptura is valid then every doctor, lawyer, engineer, scientist etc. could learn all they need to be successful practitioners by going online to amazon.com and ordering a trunk of books and reading them at whatever comprehension level they naturally have. We would have no need for teachers in anything in life - we could all simply buy books and read about “how to”. We can buy “How to Become a Millionaire” or “How to Win all the Treasure in the Universe and be Like God!”. Don’t buy into it!

Clearly Sola Scriptura is nothing more profound than the cultural artifact of the west’s general paranoia and mistrust of authority and plays into the social jingoism of “do-it-yourself since you can’t trust anyone but you”. At its core it’s just an euphemism for anarchy and a recipe for mediocrity and confusion.

Sola Scriptura proponents lack the faith to trust in anything but themselves and are like lone rangers or a cult of survivalists. As a class they tend toward paranoia, sensationalism and conspiracy. Ergo, they lack the faith and the essential ingredients necessary to survive. And that is profoundly ironic that those seeking to save their own lives will likely lose them.

There is no self help cook book formula approach to salvation. Without mother Church, her teachings and her sacraments and the combined talents and resources of the Body of Christ (e.g. The Catholic Community) none of us has a prayer.

My advise, don’t get caught up in the self-help social jingoism of the age (Sola Scriptura) and equate that with Church nor salvation.

James

 

[Newbie2]

Protestants agree on what their rule of faith is. They follow a 66 book canon of scripture.

I couldn’t find who originally posted this (picked it off Church Militant’s post), but assumed it was a tongue-in-cheek comment.

Hopefully, it was meant to inject a little levity; I can’t imagine anyone actually thinking that with the thousands of Protestant churches around that they “agree on what their rule of faith is”.

 

[elvisman]

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?

**Ummm . . . Yes (see my comments above). **
Can you refute the Authority of the Church - based on these passages ?
You keep saying the the Bible alone is your sole authoirity - even though the Bible itself NEVER says that. According to Jesus himself, it’s the Church who has the final authority.

 

[Stratiotes]

For a solid historical/scriptural coverage of this topic, I would very highly recommend Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger by Gary Michuta. I think then you will see that the question is really, “why do Protestants reject a portion of the scripture they claim to hold in such high regard?”

 

[guanophore]

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” ()

You just don’t read the early fathers enough. They ALL believed Scripture was the final word and tradition should not be believed without Scriptural proof.

St. Basil would never dream of separating scripture from the sacred tradition from which it sprang. There are few of the fathers that are as steeped in tradition as St. Basil. He wrote one of the most beautiful liturgies, all based in Tradition that is still used today primarily in the East.

As in most things, it is not “either / or” but “both/and”.

Not scripture “or” tradition, but scripture “and” tradition.

 

[Lampo]

As long as man is involved infallibility is not possible.

Is the Canon of the New Testament erroneous? Were men involved in determining the Canon of the New Testament?

I saw where someone already brought this quote of yours to your attention, but didn’t see your response.

 

[guanophore]

When it comes to faith and morals it is. Complete means just that—complete and sufficient.

If this is true,then why do we have such a breadth of standards in what is considered moral behavior? Why do some Christians think that homosexual behavior and contraception are moral, but others do not?

Why do some think that all war is wrong, and others think that there are wars that are justified?

“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.”

I confess that I do not know what you are trying to say here. Are you not making a distinction between tradition (customs) and Tradition (Sacred Teachings from the Apostles)?

Traditions handed down had nothing to do with faith or morals. Only traditions that pertain to how to operate a church, when to worship, etc. were handed down. There is no evidence at all that anything pertaining to salvation or life was handed down as tradition.

I think this is a baseless assertion. Can you show any evidence for this? Why would Paul instruct the disciples to treat both equally, if they were not?

In any case, the Traditions on how to operate the Church and how to worship are most definitely a reflection of faith and morals. These cannot be separated from Teachings on salvation. They are all part of one seemless garment.

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)

I think this is something that we have agreement with. Where we difffer is in how that “truth” is applied. Scripture is sufficient to lead one to Christ, and to equip the faithful, but it is meant to be used with a Teacher, whose duty it is to equip the saints for the work of the ministry

The other point is that we differ in what we perceive to be present in scripture. There is a thread, for example, on this forum that represents a belief that baptism has nothing to do with water. The poster has supported this with scripture, and is intractibly convinced that the disciples misunderstood from the resurrection onward.

 

[guanophore]

Obviously you have not read enough of the early church fathers. THEY DID BELIEVE IN SOLA SCRIPTURA. Their own words speak for them…

No, OS, none of those quotes say that. They refer to the absolute necessity and value of the scriptures, which the Apostolic faiths have always believed and taught. None of them even hint that the Sacred Writings should be at all removed from the Sacred Traditions from whence they came. This can be affirmed by other passages from each of these authors, demonstrating the need for unity with the Bishops, etc.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

in another post.

:

Don’t go back too far…after all, the earliest of the Church Fathers had no Scriptura to sola.

Peace,
Dante

 

[inthecloud]

I’m alone in thinking Old Scholar is some sort of agent provocateur sparring partner?

 

[mercygate]

History shows that it was because of the heretics that it became necessary to write down everything so that there could be a record of everything the apostles and the Holy Spirit taught. Without such truth, you can see what happened to the church because of the heretics.

That is why Irenaeus and others had to combat heresies like they did and they ALWAYS referred to Scripture to combat them. There was nothing else they could do. They couldn’t simply say, you are wrong, it is this way. They had to have proof and the Scriptures provided it.

Irenaeus? You mean the same guy who writes:

. . . we will put to confusion all those who, either from waywardness or conceit or blindness or obstinacy combine together against the truth, by pointing to the tradition, derived from the Apostles, of that great and illustrious Church founded and organized at Rome by the two glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to the faith declared to mankind and handed down to our own time through its bishops in their succession. For with this Church, because of its more powerful leadership, every church, that is to say, the faithful from everywhere, must needs agree, and in it the tradition that springs from the Apostles has been continuously preserved by men from everywhere…

 

[franksv]

I’m alone in thinking Old Scholar is some sort of agent provocateur sparring partner?

No, I think the level of deception runs very deep. He’s a victum and may not even know it. If he does know, thats really unfortunate.

 

[mercygate]

OS, please use the “quote” feature so that we can follow what you are attempting to say.