Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Old_Scholar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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. 😉
Me thinks you have no idea what I am asking.

What is the partim - partim view of scripture?

What is meant by the phrase “materially sufficient” with regards to scripture?
 
Where are the apostles called God breathed?
They are not called that specifically, but then again where is God called Trinity explicitly in scripture? They are both implicit facts of scripture as seen by the early church writings previous to the canon of scripture in 382ad.

If what they preached and wrote eventually became scripture, then God breathed His life into them in John 20:21-23 and then gave them the ability to not only forgive the sins of others or not to, but also to write scripture, inerrant scripture.

I would say that the two are inseperable as it pertains to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and the apostles bringing forth both from God.

God only breathed on man twice, once at creation and once in John 20:21-23

I would say that they therefore were God breathed from that point on.
 
Me thinks you have no idea what I am asking.

What is the partim - partim view of scripture?

What is meant by the phrase “materially sufficient” with regards to scripture?
I was merely using your post to share a part of why Catholics do not accept sola-scriptura. I admitted the question wasn’t for me.

Material sufficiency would be: edit- rephrase enough in the Bible to provide salvation if properly interpreted. And I assume guanophors answer would be yes, materially, but not fully sufficient.

partim-partim, no idea.
 
They are not called that specifically, but then again where is God called Trinity explicitly in scripture? They are both implicit facts of scripture as seen by the early church writings previous to the canon of scripture in 382ad.

If what they preached and wrote eventually became scripture, then God breathed His life into them in John 20:21-23 and then gave them the ability to not only forgive the sins of others or not to, but also to write scripture, inerrant scripture.

I would say that the two are inseperable as it pertains to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and the apostles bringing forth both from God.

God only breathed on man twice, once at creation and once in John 20:21-23

I would say that they therefore were God breathed from that point on.
agreed.
 
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?
No, the apostles aren’t “God breathed”, they are breathed upon by God.

2 Timothy 3:16 16 All Scripture is **breathed out by God **and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

"Now, it is common for folks to misunderstand what Paul is saying here, as if he is simply saying that the Scriptures exist on a slightly higher plane than the ‘normal’ words of men; that is not what he taught.

He used the Greek term theopneustos, which means ‘God-breathed’ or ‘breathed out by God,’ and this tells us that the very Scriptures themselves are the creation of God, reflecting His very breath, His very speaking."
 
They are not called that specifically, but then again where is God called Trinity explicitly in scripture? They are both implicit facts of scripture as seen by the early church writings previous to the canon of scripture in 382ad.

If what they preached and wrote eventually became scripture, then God breathed His life into them in John 20:21-23 and then gave them the ability to not only forgive the sins of others or not to, but also to write scripture, inerrant scripture.

I would say that the two are inseperable as it pertains to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and the apostles bringing forth both from God.

God only breathed on man twice, once at creation and once in John 20:21-23

I would say that they therefore were God breathed from that point on.
The point is that scripture was’t breathed on by God but breathed out by God.
 
No, the apostles aren’t “God breathed”, they are breathed upon by God.

2 Timothy 3:16 16 All Scripture is **breathed out by God **and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

"Now, it is common for folks to misunderstand what Paul is saying here, as if he is simply saying that the Scriptures exist on a slightly higher plane than the ‘normal’ words of men; that is not what he taught.

He used the Greek term theopneustos, which means ‘God-breathed’ or ‘breathed out by God,’ and this tells us that the very Scriptures themselves are the creation of God, reflecting His very breath, His very speaking."
I understand Paul’s meaning. Literary works are commonly breathed out by an author and written down by another. Scripture being God-breathed is just another way of saying inspired by God.

A human could not be breathed-out by God in the way the Word of God is because we are not literary works, but would you apply any less emphasis on Jesus breathing on them?

As Justinthemartyr said, only twice in the Bible was man breathed on. Would you not say Christ was inspiring something in them when he breathed onto them?
 
Well since everyone keeps asking me, I guess I’ll list the early church fathers and their quotes about Scripture. I have many, many more but space does not permit me to list them all but I want everyone to read these.

Regardless of the belief of some, the early fathers found that the most perfect expression of the apostolic heritage is to be found within the pages of Holy Writ.

They write of the sufficiency of Scripture, something everyone here has been denying.

Irenæus writes: “Being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit”(against heresies 2,28:2)

Athanasius, the great Patriarch of Alexandria, writes: “The tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources.”(Nicene Definition 32)

It is clear that the fathers affirmed that all of the doctrines of the Catholic faith are to be found within the Bible. If the doctrine is not found within its covers, then the doctrine is clearly not apostolic.

Tertullian writes: **“If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add or to take away from the written word.” **(Against Hermogenes 22)

Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, writes: **“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” **(Duties of the Clergy I,23:102)

Augustine, bishop of Hippo writes: “What more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare not ‘be wise more than behoveth to be wise;’ …Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to you the words of the Teacher.” (Widowhood 2)

Cyril of Alexandria writes: “Not all that the Lord did was written down, **but only what was deemed sufficient, either from the point of view of morals, or from the point of view of dogmas.” **(Comm. John 12)

Sure seems to me that the fathers often appealed to Scripture for justifying and proving apostolicity of Catholic doctrines.

Origen writes: “In proof of all words which we advance in matters of doctrine, we ought to set forth the sense of Scripture as confirming the meaning which we are proposing……**Therefore we should not take our own ideas for the confirmation of doctrine, unless someone shows that they are holy because they are contained in the divine Scriptures as in the temples of God.” **(Comm. On Matthew 25)

Hippolytus of Rome writes: “There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source.” (Against Noetus 9)

Also Cyril of Jerusalem writes: “For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on the demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Catechetical Lectures 4:17)

Such passages as these, on behalf of the authority of Scripture can be culled from the fathers without end. ** Clearly the church fathers affirmed the material sufficiency of the Scriptures.** In fact, one may be tempted to present these passages in support of the idea that the church fathers embraced Sola Scriptura.

Why is it that the Catholic Church of today has strayed so far away from the belief held so dearly of the sufficiency of Scripture by the early church? **This is the way it was in the beginning, before the church became the Roman Catholic Church **and they started “finding” new doctrines and making their dogmas that could not be backed up by Scripture.

All you can deny it and deny it but it is true. I have no doubt that the early fathers also considered tradition within the context of the church but not at the expense of Scripture, which is what we have today.
 
Church Militant
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…
Are you saying I am doing what the RCC does? Making claims without Scriptural support?
 
Church Militant
Quote:
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.
So to what would you appeal? Just say it is Catholic tradition? What proof could you use? How do you suppose Irenæus refuted the heretics? Just by telling them they were wrong? No of course, not. He appealed to Scripture.
 
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.
Everyone agrees and it is common knowledge that the apostles preached orally but then they wrote everything necessary down and it was designated Scripture by the apostles themselves and as the early church fathers claimed, nothing that could not be supported by Scripture should even be mentioned.
 
I was merely using your post to share a part of why Catholics do not accept sola-scriptura. I admitted the question wasn’t for me.

Material sufficiency would be: edit- rephrase enough in the Bible to provide salvation if properly interpreted. And I assume guanophors answer would be yes, materially, but not fully sufficient.

partim-partim, no idea.
I don’t mind you answering or replying to me, but I had a reason to ask what I did. Your answer for material sufficiency is very close to what James Akin related in the below article.
By JAMES AKIN:
MANY Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.

It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter Kaspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.

French theologian Yves Congar states, “**W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. **This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians.” . . . [At Trent] it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . [W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, **All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.' .. Written’ and `unwritten’ indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge" **(Tradition and Traditions [New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).

This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it. In the debate James White apparently failed to grasp this point and was unable to come up with answers to the charge that his arguments were geared only toward proving material sufficiency.
If “all is in scripture, all is in tradition” and everything needed for salvation is in scripture than why do so many of you quote the below verse as an appeal to tradition in the hopes of demonstrating scripture needs something else called “tradition”?
2 Thessalonians 2:15:
15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
Based on the above definition of material sufficiency (I realize this isn’t formal sufficiency) doesn’t it make sense that Paul is referring to traditions that have to be in the scriptures (all is in scripture, all is in tradition)?

If you believe in the partim-partim theory of tradition (part of God’s revelation is in scripture and part in Tradition (I even capatilized the T for you guys)) than I can see why you would quote 2Thess 2;15.

I guess I don’t see why someone who holds to material sufficiency of the scriptures would use 2Thess2:15 in his/her apologetic since by definition it would appear that those traditons Paul is talking about have to be in scripture.

🤷
 
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
So why don’t you tell me something that is necessary but is not included in the Bible?
 
I understand Paul’s meaning. Literary works are commonly breathed out by an author and written down by another. Scripture being God-breathed is just another way of saying inspired by God.

A human could not be breathed-out by God in the way the Word of God is because we are not literary works, but would you apply any less emphasis on Jesus breathing on them?

As Justinthemartyr said, only twice in the Bible was man breathed on. Would you not say Christ was inspiring something in them when he breathed onto them?
I don’t think it’s quite the same thing but I agree (at least partially) with your above quote.

We both know and agree that the apostles were breathed on by
God.

We both know and agree that the scriptures are God breathed.

What we disagree on is the concept of tradition.

Since we aren’t likely to come to an agreement tonight, I am going to bed and will see you tomorrow.
 
Martin Luther was telling the truth. The Catholic Church possessed most of the Bibles and kept them from the general public for hundreds of years and forbade them from reading it. In fact, had it not been for the invention of the printing press, we would still be in the dark. When Bibles could be mass produced, the common man could not be kept from it and when people like Martin Luther began to be able to read it, the truth started coming out and is still coming out.
If the Church hated the bible it would have kept it in Greek etc and not put it into latin creating the first ever complete Christian bible.

Lain became the most spoken language and even long after the reformation was still the language of the art, science and schooling etc. It was overtaken by French and then in the 1990s English.

The Church says “ignorance of the scriptures is ignornace of Christ.”

The Church tranlsated the bible into German before Luther and began translating it into English in the 600s! Then there’s French, Italian, Portugeese etc etc etc.

The dead sea scrolls where handed to Catholic bible scholars not protestnat.

Before books could be printed people heard the word of God via preaching (at Mass) like the early days! If you were one of the few who could read you could read the bible at your local Church. It was chained so no one would steal it leaving the Church with one less bible.

The Chuch loves the bible - why do you think almost every itty bittty word uttered at Mass comes right out of God’s scriptures?
 
Why is it that the Catholic Church of today has strayed so far away from the belief held so dearly of the sufficiency of Scripture by the early church? **This is the way it was in the beginning, before the church became the Roman Catholic Church **and they started “finding” new doctrines and making their dogmas that could not be backed up by Scripture.
How many times have we used the same ECFs that you have just used now to prove they believed what we believe? Those are good quotes and all, but they do not prove sola scriptura. After all, any Catholic will tell you if scriptures contradict a belief then the belief cannot be held. The quotes simply prove, with supplements from those same ECFs about our ‘stray’ doctrine, that the ECFs in question believed the Bible contains enough support for our beliefs to deem them biblical.

Check here and find those same ECFs supporting Catholic doctrine on Mary’s virginity, purgatory, authority of the Pope, etc.
catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp
 
**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.
No one has ever questioned the authority of the church to settle such a dispute such as this. This is a disciplinary problem of the church. It doesn’t affect salvation or this person’s faith. That is for Christ to decide. The problem is that you believe there is only 1 church and that isn’t true.
 
I don’t think it’s quite the same thing but I agree (at least partially) with your above quote.

We both know and agree that the apostles were breathed on by
God.

We both know and agree that the scriptures are God breathed.

What we disagree on is the concept of tradition.

Since we aren’t likely to come to an agreement tonight, I am going to bed and will see you tomorrow.
Fair enough. Good night.
 
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.
Are you denying what Basil is saying here?
 
The problem is that you believe there is only 1 church and that isn’t true.
How could the ‘pillar and bulwark of truth’ NOT be a single church that has a single set of truths? A pillar of truth has only one truth, it cannot have multiple truths and still be true, no?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top