Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[ralphinal]

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?

As a rule Councils only define things that were in question or that have had heresies against them. There is proof that they were accepted well before that, such as in the early councils around 400.

Check the bottom half of this link.
scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

 

[mercygate]

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?

OK. I’ll bite. I would say that the Catechism does lay out all of the Sacred Traditions – capital “S”, capital “T” that are required for Catholics to hold as a matter of faith.

Of course, we have a lot of little “t” traditions, local things, disciplinary things, particular things, that are part of our Catholic culture but not essential tenets of the Faith.

When we talk “Tradition” we mean big stuff. Dogma. Sacraments.

 

[franksv]

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?

If your really interested.

newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

 

[justasking4]

ralphinal;3256354]As a rule Councils only define things that were in question or that have had heresies against them. There is proof that they were accepted well before that, such as in the early councils around 400.

The deutrocanonical books were not at the same level as the rest of the 66. Even though they were in the Vulgate their status was of a secondary position.

Check the bottom half of this link.
scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

This quote from the link does not nullify the protestant position. Paul in Romans 3:2 commends the Jews because they were entrusted with oracles of God i.e, the Scripures.

Secondly are there any direct quotes from the apocrypha itself by Jesus or the apostles?

From the link:
“The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.”

 

[ralphinal]

As far as direct quotes, it really depends on your translation. I have seen some that are and the same one can be translated so that it is not. THat link that I gave you shows a bunch of the references.

The part that I was talking about on the link is where the Tradition/Church Father section started. You can see Pope and saints, some before 400 AD quoting them and calling them scripture.

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture. Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, four books. The Chronicles, two books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, two books. Macchabees, two books." Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).

Where do you get that they were in a secondary position?

 

[Pwrlftr]

CM you are dead on correct here.

I don’t know if CM is correct or not since I haven’t read his post but what you posted is not based on much fact.

What PL and OS want us to believe is that The Catholic Church is wrong…

Well…duh.

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.

None of the historic creeds on sola scriptura even hint at anything similar to what you are evidently making up in the above quote.

Maybe before attacking sola scriptura you should try to understand it first.

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.

Does God love all men equally? I guess that’s a topic for another thread.

Regardless, etenal salvation or eternal damnation is not a matter of reading comprehension. I am guess either you are completely ignorant of what sola scriptura is or are just engaging in polemics. Which is it?

I don’t know how you can attack sola fide in one thread and then try to pass it off that sola scriptura makes salvation a meritorious work by requiring reading comprehension or some other external work.

 

[Pwrlftr]

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.

What exactly is Tradition in this specific case and how exactly did it help define the doctrine?

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.

I wouldn’t say the doctrine of the Trinity is “obvious” but nonetheless I do believe it is found within the pages of scripture.

I guess I’m not sure exactly what “Tradition” is in the sense you are using it here. In other words, is Tradition just the development of the understanding of the doctrine or is it something in addition to the development or all together different than the development of the doctrine?

 

[Pwrlftr]

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.

Thanks for your post. So am I correct in saying that it is your understanding that “tradition” as it is used in the doctrine of the Trinity is simply the development of the doctrine but that the roots or all the stuff that makes up the doctrine are are found in scripture?

 

[mercygate]

What exactly is Tradition in this specific case and how exactly did it help define the doctrine?

I wouldn’t say the doctrine of the Trinity is “obvious” but nonetheless I do believe it is found within the pages of scripture.

I guess I’m not sure exactly what “Tradition” is in the sense you are using it here. In other words, is Tradition just the development of the understanding of the doctrine or is it something in addition to the development or all together different than the development of the doctrine?

I think you are saying what I think I am saying.

All Traditions can be supported by Scripture. But – as here – a lot of the doctrinal development is worked out by the engagement of the brains when confronted with apparent contradictions such as how Jesus can be one with the Father but also pray to Him? How can he be one with the Father while walking around in a physical body? How can he be one with the Father while sitting at His right hand? Is the Holy Spirit a full-fledged Divine Person? or is He “the spirit of God” – like an angel – that is sent forth like a messenger? All that becomes Tradition when defined by the early Councils. Ditto the doctrine of Mary as Mother of God. The formulation was necessary to nail down the Incarnation of Christ. Yet the term “theotokos” does not appear in Scripture.

 

[CentralFLJames]

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?

How it it possible that every Sola Scriptura’ist does not keep in his mind every word, sentence and verse of the OT and NT Bible (scripture)?

Please be reasonable here.

We have more traditions under the notion of small “t” than any one person could ever hope to hold in their head with a lifetime of study.

Our “T(t)raditions” (capital T and little t) are embodied in our liturgy, our mass, our catechism, our sacrifices, in our faith and our services. They encompass a wide range of things including the Catholic “style” of teaching (the first education system America ever had by the way founded about 1600 in the Spanish colonies), administering to the sick or imprisoned or poor, running charitable hospitals, forms of charity etc. We have an amazing number of saintly devotions, private saintly revelations, church seasons and a calendar of devotions, monastic life (itself a full set of its own traditions) etc. etc.

It would take a person their entire life to understand the complete history of the Catholic Church and even do a cursory survey of all the traditions. Traditions applied to teaching are as somone said the traditions with a big “T”. As new heresies are put down The Church draws upon its current formal teachings (all scriptural based) and examines the archives and histories for other supporting evidence and if necessary writes a new teaching. In this sense some ancient tradition becomes transcribed from archives to publicly manifest itself in new modern day Encyclicals, letters, speeches, new CCC etc.

The Magisterium has its own scholarly and theological methodologies for working these into the teaching. And in a sense this is also an ecclesiastical tradition that the laity need not be too involved in since we trust that reasonable stewardship of the office imparts a necessary self-discipline and a doctrine of fairness and authenticity.

The Vatican “secret” archives alone that have more than 630 different archival fonds, for an extension of about 85 linear kilometres. The Vatican has enormous scholarship and libraries and it freely makes it available to others outside the church.

Our tradition is a living tradition. As the Holy Spirit matures the church the Holy Fathers routinely put out new Apostolic letters, Encyclicals, Homilies, Letters, Messages, Speeches, Bulls (see EXSURGE DOMINE» By Leo X Threatening to Excommunicate Martin Luther) etc. These new teaching all add to the deposit of Faith and the basis for future popes and bishops to consider in forming new teachings. To get an idea of the vastness of our church tradition and teaching visit just one area of the Vatacan’s Papal Archive ).

Some of you Protestants don’t have a clue of how rich of a legacy and treasure you all walked away from after the protestant rebellion. What a shame! You really need to come home and look around - its just stunning and there is nothing on the planet in the same universe.

The Catholic Church is unbelievably steeped to the brim with a complex wealth of tradition. We have Chaplets, rosaries, special prayers and blessings, all manner of song and chant styles and modes, rich symbolism, paintings, architectural styles, altar forms, vestment conventions, candle and incense conventions, individual religious order symbology and focus areas etc. etc.

When contrasted to the ho-hum veneer of traditions seen in secular institutions or johnny-come-lately christian sects The Catholic Church is clearly the real thing with an amazing multi-dimensionality that nothing can emulate. The Church stands profoundly head and shoulders above anything ever seen on the planet.

Walk into a quiet Catholic Church anywhere in the world and one sees more than just a shell of a building with a steepled roof and an organ in the corner and song books in pews. One sees more than a gathering place for oration, lecture, meetings or a place for a motivational speaker to perform. No, in a Catholic church or a small modest chapel one sees a warm and still place where true worship is made to The Eternal God. There is a reverent hush about the place. It is a place that invites reverence, sanctity, holiness and peaceful comfort; yet it is also a place that “feels” comfortable, permanent and more like home than it does a lecture hall.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

None of the historic creeds on sola scriptura even hint at anything similar to what you are evidently making up in the above quote.

Maybe before attacking sola scriptura you should try to understand it first.

Does God love all men equally? I guess that’s a topic for another thread.

Regardless, eternal salvation or eternal damnation is not a matter of reading comprehension. I am guess either you are completely ignorant of what sola scriptura is or are just engaging in polemics. Which is it?

I don’t know how you can attack sola fide in one thread and then try to pass it off that sola scriptura makes salvation a meritorious work by requiring reading comprehension or some other external work.

My theme on Sola Scriptura is consistent - its absurd and itself non-biblical. It is my moral duty to tell you that since it is gravely disordered and is heretical.

I was simply giving yet another example of how it is absurd. Sola Scriptura as a stand alone concept devoid of any teaching body certainly condemns anyone who believes it to the level of their own reading and comprehension skills. But in front of that is the fact that it is an illicit doctrine that traps both skilled and unskilled reader to a step away from The Church to walk along a lonely path of self reflection to one’s damnation.

There are no assurances of salvation outside of The Church nor through rejection of the authority of the Church. These are condemnable acts of disobedience to God.

So, polemic or ignorance?
Neither - what I say is truth - you offer heretical theory.

Sola Scriptura is false doctrine that will land you in hell if it separates you from The Church and you promote it to lead others from The Catholic Church.

Knowing that you can no longer claim ignorance.

So which it it for you? Heresy or conversion and repentance?

James

 

[Pwrlftr]

My theme on Sola Scriptura is consistent - its absurd and itself non-biblical. It is my moral duty to tell you that since it is gravely disordered and is heretical.

If you are serious you should learn what it is. Based on some of your posts you are simply drawing up a straw man.

I was simply giving yet another example of how it is absurd. Sola Scriptura as a stand alone concept devoid of any teaching body certainly condemns anyone who believes it to the level of their own reading and comprehension skills.

No, this is the caricature that you have created.

But in front of that is the fact that it is an illicit doctrine that traps both skilled and unskilled reader to a step away from The Church to walk along a lonely path of self reflection to one’s damnation.

There are no assurances of salvation outside of The Church nor through rejection of the authority of the Church. These are condemnable acts of disobedience to God.

Well James, who has the authentic teaching of Rome? Should I listen to you who seemingly thinks I am bound for damnation because I am not Catholic or should I listen to other Catholics who assure me that although I am not a formal member of your church I am somehow still a part of it (I guess through baptism) and have nothing to worry about? In fact, I even had a priest I was talking to tell me that as long as I am the best Christian I can be I don’t need your church.

So, polemic or ignorance?

Well, either you are ignorant of sola scriptura or you are simply interested in polemics. If you are here to witness and not just argue back and forth you should probably present the other side as honestly as you can. I am sure you would rail against someone who insists that you worship Mary.

Neither - what I say is truth - you offer heretical theory.

Since you haven’t addressed what sola scriptura is why should I listen to you? You either don’t care enough to honestly discuss the issue or you haven’t takent the time to understand it. Why would I listen to someone who flails at windmills?

Sola Scriptura is false doctrine that will land you in hell if it separates you from The Church and you promote it to lead others from The Catholic Church.

Knowing that you can no longer claim ignorance.

So which it it for you? Heresy or conversion and repentance?

James

If sola scriptura is a false doctrine you haven’t done much of anything to demonstrate it’s falseness. I guess because of your poor apologetic I am still ignorant.

 

[guanophore]

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

No. He has found a venue for his anticatholic venom.

 

[DarkMark]

No. He has found a venue for his anticatholic venom.

Old Scholar likes to play this “Hit and Run” game whenever he post something negatively about the Catholic Church.

Since He had been refuted on many of His claims (some Church Fathers believed in Sola Scriptural, Bible alone its in the Bible) its time to “run away” and come back when he can attack someone he thinks don’t know History, the Bible, etc. He only reply to a few posts, but when he sees that he is being expose, he doesn’t write back.

I don’t believe Old Scholar to discuss anything, nor is he here to find the Truth.

Sad if you come to think about it. . . . . .

 

[guanophore]

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?

Catholics do not disagree that the Trinity is found in Scripture, any more than they disagree with the Ever Virgin Mary in scripture. The problem is how one interprets scripture. This is what Sacred Tradition provides that is lost to those who reject the Authority appointed by Jesus. Mormons read the same scripture, and interpret that the HS is not divine. This has been happening since early years in the Church.

The error you are making is separating the two from one another. Clearly, Paul tells the disciples to keep the teachings, whether they are from word of mouth, or by letter. It is not that Trinity is found “only” in scripture, or “only” in Tradition. The two are meant to work together inseparably.

 

[cascherman]

Scripture is said to be “God-breathed.” Nothing else is given this designation. This term is never applied to “tradition.”

What I am about to say may have already been said, but it is so monumental that it could afford to be repeated.

Nothing else is said to be God-breathed?! Read the Gospels my brother!

John 20:22-23
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retain.

Not only is something else in the Bible indeed God-breathed, but it is the Apostles. The same apostles that appointed bishops, presbyters, and deacons after them, and on and on until now!

So yes, you are coming onto something, right?
God’s written Word is God-breathed and God’s apostles are God-breathed. That sounds an awful lot like what Catholics have been saying all along.

Tradition is indeed God-breathed.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Catholics do not disagree that the Trinity is found in Scripture, any more than they disagree with the Ever Virgin Mary in scripture. The problem is how one interprets scripture. This is what Sacred Tradition provides that is lost to those who reject the Authority appointed by Jesus. Mormons read the same scripture, and interpret that the HS is not divine. This has been happening since early years in the Church.

The error you are making is separating the two from one another. Clearly, Paul tells the disciples to keep the teachings, whether they are from word of mouth, or by letter. It is not that Trinity is found “only” in scripture, or “only” in Tradition. The two are meant to work together inseparably.

guanaphore,

Do you believe scripture is materially sufficient or do you hold to the partim-partim view of tradition?

 

[Pwrlftr]

What I am about to say may have already been said, but it is so monumental that it could afford to be repeated.

Nothing else is said to be God-breathed?! Read the Gospels my brother!

Not only is something else in the Bible indeed God-breathed, but it is the Apostles. The same apostles that appointed bishops, presbyters, and deacons after them, and on and on until now!

So yes, you are coming onto something, right?
God’s written Word is God-breathed and God’s apostles are God-breathed. That sounds an awful lot like what Catholics have been saying all along.

Tradition is indeed God-breathed.

Where are the apostles called God breathed?

 

[cascherman]

guanaphore,

Do you believe scripture is materially sufficient or do you hold to the partim-partim view of tradition?

I know that is a question for quanophore, but it amazes me how sola-scripturaists cannot see this. Scripture being a persons only authority and allowing unlimited personal interpretation leads to what has happened to the protestant community, innumerable separations and divisions.

So no, without an authority to authoritatively interpret it, scripture is not explicit enough to be sufficient. If there were not symbolism, metaphors, etc, then Yes, I could potentially see scripture not needing interpretation. Do you realize the Jehovah’s Witnesses use the same Bible you do (somewhat) to prove that Jesus is NOT God while you use the Bible to prove he IS? You don’t see a problem with personal interpretation?

Now the only question would be who is that authority. I’ve got an answer for you, if you’ll take it.

 

[cascherman]

Where are the apostles called God breathed?

John 20:22-23
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retain.

Already posted that. You even get to participate in by reading the event where they were breathed on by God. Simple enough, right?

Jesus=God
Jesus breathed on the apostles=God-breathed

I don’t think you believe it was just any old breathing Jesus was doing there, do you?