Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[mercygate]

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.

The cost of a pulpit Bible was the equivalent of about $300K in today’s dollars. Bibles weren’t “kept” from the people except as a way of keeping them where they could be read to the people.

The wholesale dissemination of the Scriptures into the hands of common fold has been an invaluable blessing but it has been catastrophic in its fruit on many fronts.

 

[mercygate]

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

But the Magisterium teaches ONE faith, and makes no secret about what that faith s. If I deviate from that faith, I am the problem.

Your statement about “different Catholic faiths” – if you actually believe it – is just empty sniping.

 

[mercygate]

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

Would that be because the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as affirmed by all Christians, is not contained in Scripture?

 

[franksv]

Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

It’s pretty simple really.

SS is not taught anywhere in the Bible.

According to the Bible we are to accept oral tradition & the written word.

1 Corinthians 11:2

I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:14-15

To this end he has (also) called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours

Scripture call the Church the pillar and ground of truth.

1 Timothy 3:15

But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

Christ himself established an authoritative teaching church, which was commissioned to teach all nations.

Matthew 28:19 & 20

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

Jesus would give the church the Holy Spirit to teach all truth.

John 16:13

But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.

Christ plainly gave and emphasized the authority of His church and the role it would play in safeguarding and defining the deposit of faith.

Matthew 16:18 &19

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Jesus tells us to submit to the authority of His church.

Matthew 18:15-18

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.

Scripture states that it needs a teacher.

2 Tim 3:16 & 17

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work

The first Christians did not have a Bible.

The church produced the Bible, The bible did not produce the church.

Scripture without the authority of the church teaching was foreign to the early church.

The books of the Bible where not settled on until the 4th century.

The church authority identified the canon of the bible.

Common people did not have have the Bible until the 15th century.

SS did not exist prior to the 14th century.

SS produces bad fruit, in the form of division and opens the door for self interpretations.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Would that be because the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as affirmed by all Christians, is not contained in Scripture?

It’s probably because it would take an inordinate amount of time to fully develop it.

That said, the doctrine of the Trinity is most certainly found within the pages of scripture. I know you disagree with that but I don’t understand why.

If you believe the Trinity is only found in “tradition” (maybe that is phrased to strong) can you explain what exactly you believe about “tradition” and the Trinity?

 

[mercygate]

It’s probably because it would take an inordinate amount of time to fully develop it.

That said, the doctrine of the Trinity is most certainly found within the pages of scripture. I know you disagree with that but I don’t understand why.

If you believe the Trinity is only found in “tradition” (maybe that is phrased to strong) can you explain what exactly you believe about “tradition” and the Trinity?

Of course the Trinity is supported by Scripture. All Catholic doctrines can be supported by Scripture.

However, the WORD does not exist. The key concept that defines the Person of Jesus Christ (homoousion) is not in Scripture. And the specific delineation of the relationship between the three Persons of the Trinity cannot be demonstrated from Scripture. One cannot demonstrate that the Holy Spirit is actually a divine Person. All that “co-equal, consubstantial” stuff is Tradition.

Yes: to say that the Trinity is foud “only” in tradition would be too strong. But to say that the doctrine could be detected from Scripture ALONE, unaided by Tradition would be impossible.

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity may appear “obvious” to some who espouse sola Scriptura but that is only because we have been looking at Scripture through 1700 years of Tradition. Even ecclesial traditions that hold to *sola Scriptura, *such as the Lutherans and Episcopalians, nevertheless accept at least the first four ecumenical councils. Those are the councils that nailed down the doctrine of the Trinity: that’s Tradition.

 

[mangy_dog]

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Protestants agree on what their rule of faith is. They follow a 66 book canon of scripture. 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. Catholics disagree among themselves about just which papal decrees, council rulings, etc., are infallible and which ones are not. 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 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?

I will list the early fathers and their views on *Sola Scriptura *in another post.

Please—a nice Christian thread…

66 book canon huh?..just like the incomplete protestant bible - the protestants believe incompletely.

Your…extremely long thread serves only to confound the above and following points: The Catholic church is the one, true church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven, and of which He left Peter as its first Pope…263 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI.
Separate from Her you have incomplete belief such as your 66 book bible. The real Bible has 73 books - it is catholic and is one of three sacred sources that have sustained the teachings of the Catholic church for over 2000 years despite the “protesters”.
All the wordy fumigations will never change what Christ Himself established.

nice christian thread.

 

[elvisman]

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.

Oh, REALLY?
St. Augustine - perhaps one of the greatest of the Church Fathers:
**“If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so”
(Against the Letter of Mani Called ‘The Foundation’ 5:6).

Ummm . . . HOW do you get around that?
Game, Set and Match.

 

[CentralFLJames]

The truth is that Sola Scriptura is just a politically correct euphemism for not-Catholic. We already had that in the term “Protestant” but the problem was that even the lose organizational hiearchy in protestant churches is too much for the Sola Scriptura’ists. They want no one telling them what to do and want no authority. Hence the distinction is made. This might actually make for interesting bed-fellows as Protestant ministers find they can’t keep their congregations together and have to start aligning closer with Catholics with more ecumenical programs to keep themselves from losing out completely to the rush toward anarchy.

From my perspective Sola Scriptura’ists are nothing but what we call “Cafeteria Catholics” who just prefer a very narrow sampling of the full offering. They want the taste-good apple pie, and hor`derves but they don’t want to have the main offering. They are fine with taking all the fun social-traditions, and customs (in particular The Church holidays, early doctrine, church on Sunday rather than the sabbath etc.) but reject in principal anything that implies an authority to Rome.

So the Sola Scriptura’ists out of simple desire to not appear to be emulating The Catholic Church and be “different” essentially miss the most important things like the sacraments Eucharist, Confession, Holy Orders, Last Rights, etc. In so separating themselves they then have the ability to offer “franchise Christianity” with all the taste good stuff and a lot of the social benefits (as if Christianity was a social club) but with no requirements to be obedient to anyone but their own conscience. That becomes very easy to sell feel-good pablum to the hordes of people who have a fallen away religion but want to have peace of mind that in the end they are going to heaven. Sola Scriptura is like getting free psychological self-help without a license. It’s like creating a new religious Walmart, SAMs Club, Home Depot, and Lowes marketing model catering to the “do it yourself” mentality. And I admit it’s compelling - except to somone who knows that very few of these are going to make it to heaven without the Church’s sacraments and guidance.

So a Sola Scriptura’ist is now free to pick and chose even more once they convince themselves they are infallible and the old man in Rome is not. So, Sola Scriptura’s really do like the Catholic notion of infallibility but they are annoyed that The Church though of it thousands of years sooner and want to hijack it from Rome and make it their own.

So, If they don’t like what a minister is telling them in one place they simply go to another and another etc. until they find somone who reinforces what they themselves want to believe. In essence everything in Sola Scriptura’s comes down to “Jesus Saves” and life and salvation are fun and easy and worship is one big pep rally. Eventually, a Sola Scriptura’ist can “be saved” by sleeping with their bible under the pillow as if the Truth Fairy will tell them all they need to know.

The sad thing is that the SS’s unifying principal is basically centered on: “anything not Catholic” and “The Bible” (usually KJV v2). If Catholics were to suddenly disband for a few years Sola Scriptura advoctes, lacking a thing to congeal their common loathing around would then turn on itself into more pure SS sects. We would soon have a legion of SS churches such as: SS.Methodists, SS.Lutherans, SS.Evangelicals, SS.TrueSS, SS.BornAgains, and SS.MeToo! and SS.SOS.

It’s already almost become a circus and the conditions are ripe for a new super Protestant Leader (playing on the SS ‘666’ preoccupation here ) to emerge to try an usurp it all under one leadership structure. But that will be the death blow for it since that implies authority and basically SS advocates are fundamentalist rebels and anarchists.

Ultimately without a leadership and teaching structure SS will fall by the wayside into obscurity as do all cults.

James

 

[franksv]

The truth is that Sola Scriptura is just a politically correct euphemism for not-Catholic. We already had that in the term “Protestant” but the problem was that even the lose organizational hiearchy in protestant churches is too much for the Sola Scriptura’ists. They want no one telling them what to do and want no authority. Hence the distinction is made. This might actually make for interesting bed-fellows as Protestant ministers find they can’t keep their congregations together and have to start aligning closer with Catholics with more ecumenical programs to keep themselves from losing out completely to the rush toward anarchy.

From my perspective Sola Scriptura’ists are nothing but what we call “Cafeteria Catholics” who just prefer a very narrow sampling of the full offering. They want the taste-good apple pie, and hor`derves but they don’t want to have the main offering. They are fine with taking all the fun social-traditions, and customs (in particular The Church holidays, early doctrine, church on Sunday rather than the sabbath etc.) but reject in principal anything that implies an authority to Rome.

So the Sola Scriptura’ists out of simple desire to not appear to be emulating The Catholic Church and be “different” essentially miss the most important things like the sacraments Eucharist, Confession, Holy Orders, Last Rights, etc. In so separating themselves they then have the ability to offer “franchise Christianity” with all the taste good stuff and a lot of the social benefits (as if Christianity was a social club) but with no requirements to be obedient to anyone but their own conscience. That becomes very easy to sell feel-good pablum to the hordes of people who have a fallen away religion but want to have peace of mind that in the end they are going to heaven. Sola Scriptura is like getting free psychological self-help without a license. It’s like creating a new religious Walmart, SAMs Club, Home Depot, and Lowes marketing model catering to the “do it yourself” mentality. And I admit it’s compelling - except to somone who knows that very few of these are going to make it to heaven without the Church’s sacraments and guidance.

So a Sola Scriptura’ist is now free to pick and chose even more once they convince themselves they are infallible and the old man in Rome is not. So, Sola Scriptura’s really do like the Catholic notion of infallibility but they are annoyed that The Church though of it thousands of years sooner and want to hijack it from Rome and make it their own.

So, If they don’t like what a minister is telling them in one place they simply go to another and another etc. until they find somone who reinforces what they themselves want to believe. In essence everything in Sola Scriptura’s comes down to “Jesus Saves” and life and salvation are fun and easy and worship is one big pep rally. Eventually, a Sola Scriptura’ist can “be saved” by sleeping with their bible under the pillow as if the Truth Fairy will tell them all they need to know.

The sad thing is that the SS’s unifying principal is basically centered on: “anything not Catholic” and “The Bible” (usually KJV v2). If Catholics were to suddenly disband for a few years Sola Scriptura advoctes, lacking a thing to congeal their common loathing around would then turn on itself into more pure SS sects. We would soon have a legion of SS churches such as: SS.Methodists, SS.Lutherans, SS.Evangelicals, SS.TrueSS, SS.BornAgains, and SS.MeToo! and SS.SOS.

It’s already almost become a circus and the conditions are ripe for a new super Protestant Leader (playing on the SS ‘666’ preoccupation here ) to emerge to try an usurp it all under one leadership structure. But that will be the death blow for it since that implies authority and basically SS advocates are fundamentalist rebels and anarchists.

Ultimately without a leadership and teaching structure SS will fall by the wayside into obscurity as do all cults.

James

Well said, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I enjoyed reading your post.

Frank

 

[mangy_dog]

**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…

You know what?..in a crazy world, where - protestants had over-turned or…prevailed against the Catholic church to the point of making it non-existent. And, where the multitude and multiplicity of “christian” denominations dominated the christian outlook on things ecclesial, religious, moral and ethical…- in a world like that, Satan would’ve already established himself as god over all creation…quite possibly at the height of power of the Nazi regime. Being the perfect vehicle for the countless errors and heresies brought about by freelance, acephalic “interpreters of truth”.
Be thankful that the gates of hell have not nor will ever prevail against the One, True Catholic church to which you will someday return. Be thankful that this is one bridge you won’t be able to burn with your litigious, anti-hierarchical rhetoric.

 

[Church_Militant]

It’s probably because it would take an inordinate amount of time to fully develop it.

That said, the doctrine of the Trinity is most certainly found within the pages of scripture. I know you disagree with that but I don’t understand why.

Hi!
That’s not what they’re saying… they are saying that it is not explicitly spelled out in scripture, not that it’s not there.

If you believe the Trinity is only found in “tradition” (maybe that is phrased to strong) can you explain what exactly you believe about “tradition” and the Trinity?

The point is that that doctrine had to be developed over some time in the early church just exactly because of that.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Hi!
That’s not what they’re saying… they are saying that it is not explicitly spelled out in scripture, not that it’s not there.The point is that that doctrine had to be developed over some time in the early church just exactly because of that.

CM you are dead on correct here.

What PL and OS want us to believe is that The Catholic Church is wrong and that God wants everyone on their own to study scripture all their lives to pull out all the many many derivable truths that are not literally observable or spelled out in scripture. Those that are of low IQ or do not have a talent or capacity nor the time to read at a college level comprehension or just can’t figure out the Rosetta stone or the rubric that is constantly being revealed to the Church over time are just out of luck and have to go to hell.

NOT!

A kind and benevolent God who loves all men equally would not leave eternal salvation or eternal damnation to a matter of reading comprehension and personal ability to understand scripture. Jesus constantly used the shepherd analogy and told Peter to feed his sheep. Those that want to wander off on their own are free to do so at their own great risk.

But OS would have us believe the absurd notion that the Catholic Church wants to lock up bibles to prevent the poor bourgeoisie and street urchins from learning things on their own. So OS in light of current discussion should we conclude that God wants to lock up the deeper meanings of His words by leaving these same people on their own with a library full of bibles, manuscripts and ECF teaching to figure it out on their own? Do you think its better to let them all have a free KJV in every house and lock up the Catholic Church so that is can not apply its profound scholarship, study, history, deposit of the faith and insight to keep the masses to the task of each laboring in vain in their own ignorance? This almost sound like communist thinking - create a class of perpetual have nots under a banner of liberation and beat the drum of oppression anytime somone questions why their life is so pitiful.

James

 

[Tomster]

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).

Thank you very much.

 

[justasking4]

Lampo;3254124]

Originally Posted by Old Scholar
As long as man is involved infallibility is not possible.

Lampo
Is the Canon of the New Testament erroneous?

I don’t believe so.

Lampo
Were men involved in determining the Canon of the New Testament?

Yes

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

 

[justasking4]

66 book canon huh?..just like the incomplete protestant bible - the protestants believe incompletely.

Your…extremely long thread serves only to confound the above and following points: The Catholic church is the one, true church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven, and of which He left Peter as its first Pope…263 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI.
Separate from Her you have incomplete belief such as your 66 book bible. The real Bible has 73 books - it is catholic and is one of three sacred sources that have sustained the teachings of the Catholic church for over 2000 years despite the “protesters”.
All the wordy fumigations will never change what Christ Himself established.

nice christian thread.

Were not the apocryha i.e. dutrocanical books of the OT not considered fully inspired and inerrant before the reformation and it was not until Trent that the council “elevated” them to full status as the other 66?

 

[justasking4]

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.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. :shrug:Fallacious premise and therefore invalid. 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.This is nothing but rhetorical supposition without substance. You grossly err in your understanding of Catholic teaching concerning divine revelation.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)

Would you happen to know what all the Sacred Traditions of the catholic church is for the past 2000 years?

 

[Church_Militant]

CM you are dead on correct here.

Thanks.

What PL

and OS want us to believe is that The Catholic Church is wrong and that God wants everyone on their own to study scripture all their lives to pull out all the many many derivable truths that are not literally observable or spelled out in scripture. Those that are of low IQ or do not have a talent or capacity nor the time to read at a college level comprehension or just can’t figure out the Rosetta stone or the rubric that is constantly being revealed to the Church over time are just out of luck and have to go to hell.

NOT!Possibly in the case of OS, but I doubt that about PL, as I have talked to him by PM and I believe that he’s a straight guy and that his comments are both sincere and respectful.

No one says that these people have to agree with the Catholic Church, so long as they disagree with what we really believe, and are respectful and charitable in their disagreements.

IMO, PL’s comments and questions derive from a sincere and honest heart as well as some measure of confusion as to why there are all these differences in teaching between us.

OS OTOH, comes across to me as someone who’s less interested in the truth than he is a pulpit for his rhetoric. So far, I have real questions as to if he even reads our posts and most especially the links that we offer him.

A kind and benevolent God who loves all men equally would not leave eternal salvation or eternal damnation to a matter of reading comprehension and personal ability to understand scripture. Jesus constantly used the shepherd analogy and told Peter to feed his sheep. Those that want to wander off on their own are free to do so at their own great risk.

Yeah, but just remember that that same Shepherd is also the one who promises to go out looking for that one lost sheep.

But OS would have us believe the absurd notion that the Catholic Church wants to lock up bibles to prevent the poor bourgeoisie and street urchins from learning things on their own.

Well there are people out there who believe that craziness, but hey they forget that all the books were chained like that.http://www.bookbinding.com/binding/images/198.jpg

 

[Church_Militant]

Would you happen to know what all the Sacred Traditions of the catholic church is for the past 2000 years?

Not right off the top of my head, no.

However, have you read the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church and followed up all the footnotes? Now THAT’s a Bible study!

 

[justasking4]

Not right off the top of my head, no.

However, have you read the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church and followed up all the footnotes? Now THAT’s a Bible study!

How is it possible that catholics don’t know what these Sacred Traditions are?
Don’t catholics study these things and know what they are?

Is the catechism all the Sacred Traditions?