Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[Old_Scholar]

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.

Infallibility of men was not necessary for acceptance of the infallible word of God.

 

[guanophore]

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?

Jesus and His Apostles taught and wrote from them with the status of “it is written”, therefore,the Church considers them part of Jesus’ canon.

 

[cascherman]

Infallibility of men was not necessary for acceptance of the infallible word of God.

I don’t get how they could have known an infallible book from a fallible book (or uninfallible book, as I almost typed out ) without having guidance from the Holy Spirit to keep them from erring.

 

[guanophore]

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

Glad you asked! As a matter of fact, these can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is available free online. The Gospel has always been free, and the Teachings that Paul enjoins us to preserve, whether by word, or by mouth, are available to all.

 

[cascherman]

Jesus and His Apostles taught and wrote from them with the status of “it is written”, therefore,the Church considers them part of Jesus’ canon.

Also, from the council of Rome, Pope Damasus lists the deuterocanon included with the protocanon without distinction of worthiness.

tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm

 

[Canto]

You need to study history a little more. The Jews canonized the Old Testament about 200 years before Christ. It hasn’t changed since, except for the Catholics trying to add to it.

If I want to know the cannon of the bible no offence but I go to God’s Church not the Jews.

A the time of Christ even today there is no set cannon in Judaism. Some believe it or not actually accpet the Deutrocannon.

Aside from one book the entire Deuterocannon has been found in Hebrew. The more common Jewish cannon rejected the books as they did not have them in Hebrew at the time and and hated the Greek translation after the early Christians used it to much effect in thier converting of thousands of Jews.

They didn’t included Maccabes due the the uprising in the book and wanting to apease the Roman Empire.

They did not except wisdom as it clearly prophecises the passion of Christ.

If you read the Jerusalem Bible you will see how clearly (via the cross-references) the deutrocannon matches the New Testament.

etc etc etc

 

[Old_Scholar]

guanophore

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Scholar

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?

I don’t believe it is possible for everyone to agree on everything but the truth is there in Scripture. Some may see it differently but that doesn’t change the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Scholar
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?

Remember Scripture was still being written. It was important to remember what was said, but once it was written down and declared Scripture, then the truth was there. At least some of the traditions Paul was speaking of had to be traditions of custom.

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.

What do you believe is sufficient that is not included in the Bible?

Regarding the other thread, remember that there are three kinds of baptism; water, fire and Spirit. Certainly water is always mentioned when speaking of that type of baptism. I can’t imagine the argument against that. I’ll have to try and find time to look at the other thread. My time is limited already and trying to answer all the questions takes a considerable amount of my computer time.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

I agree that the Scriptures came from the apostles in the form of tradition. But once they were written, the early fathers all claimed that anything that did not agree with them was to be avoided. There are many quotes that say that and I don’t say that there were not other traditions that the fathers found important. Just that they had to agree with Scripture if they involved faith or morals.

 

[Canto]

The Trinity is covered quite well in scripture.

The bible speaks of the Father, Son and Holy spirit
but it never says they are three distinct people forming one Godhead as the Church teaches (see the hymn Ave Maris Stella!).

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Infallibility of men was not necessary for acceptance of the infallible word of God.

Hey OS,

Where, exactly, did you find THAT text in your bible???

Robert

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

Like I said…You just don’t read enough…

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

The Trinity is covered quite well in scripture.

The trinity is a result of the midrash (commentary) and Tradition of the Magisterium.

It is NOT mentioned in Scripture which is your benchmark for Sola Scriptura, OS.

Come on, quit the intellectual posturing! Either be consistent or try another tack.

Robert

 

[cascherman]

You need to study history a little more. The Jews canonized the Old Testament about 200 years before Christ. It hasn’t changed since, except for the Catholics trying to add to it.

… lets see some substantiation for that claim.

72 Jews translated the septuagint and that was after that 200 year mark you claim. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you the septuagint contains the deuterocanon.

The only books that were translated into greek in the 3rd century BC by the Jews were the Torah, so there was no question as to content there. But, within the next centuries (after your 200 year mark) somehow the Jews translated the deuterocanon into greek as well as if it were scripture.

Gotta say, unless you have some good proof otherwise, I don’t think your claim adds up. Conversations were held by the Jews in the year 90 AD (commonly misunderstood as the council of Jamnia) still talking about canonical content.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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. . . . . .

It’s sad to read something like this. I don’t “run away.” I have a life and it doesn’t include hours a day at this computer. I answer all the questions as soon as I can and I am sincere in my posts and questions. If everyone paid attention to my posts and read them as I do all the others then we all would be better off.

I see a great deal of insincerity when people just spout off and haven’t even read the references, etc. I know they haven’t read them because they don’t refute them adequately, with citations, etc.

Are you one of those, or are you sincere?

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

All Scripture is “God-breathed” and I have maintained that all along. However, there has been no “God-breathing” since apostolic times. There is no one today who has received such. To read this any other way is ludicrous.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

Does what you are claiming explain the many different things of the Roman Catholic Church that does not agree? Such as homosexual priests, women priests, priests who support homosexual marriage, priests who promote abortion and I could go on and on. Where did they get their truth?

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Does what you are claiming explain the many different things of the Roman Catholic Church that does not agree? Such as homosexual priests, women priests, priests who support homosexual marriage, priests who promote abortion and I could go on and on. Where did they get their truth?

You’re fully of hooey, OS, if you think what you allege above is A) true and correct of the Catholic Church and B) indicative of what is TAUGHT by the Church as received from Christ through His Disciples.

Where do you get your facts? From Chick Tracts?

Robert

 

[guanophore]

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?

Many Catholics are not properly catechized in their faith.

Unfortunatly, there are way too many persons who are born to Catholic parents, and entrusted to the grace of God through Baptism, and then subsequently not taught the very basics of their faith.

The Catechism is a summary and introduction to the faith. To say that “The catechism is all the Sacred Traditions” would be as erroneous (and more so) than saying that the Holy Scripture is “all the Sacred Traditions”.

You are not permitted to access the content of the Sacred Traditions, ja4, as you are an unbeliever. Such mysteries are not preseverved for those that deny the Apostolic Succession.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

You need to study history a little more. The Jews canonized the Old Testament about 200 years before Christ. It hasn’t changed since, except for the Catholics trying to add to it.

Oh boy, more Chick Tract history:banghead:

Look, so you think we’re the Whore of Babylon, right?

So you think the KJV is THE Bible for Christians, right?

Fine.

Wallow in your hatred and lies. But if you are going to assert something as ignorant of history as a Jewish canon “about 200 years before Christ,” then you are just embarrassing yourself.

Jamnia began about 90 AD. You know, AD as in Anno Domine, Year of our Lord???

Robert

 

[Old_Scholar]

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

I see you use the term “enough support” when talking about beliefs. Strange then that Cyril would say you shouldn’t even consider “even a casual statement.” and Irenæus would say the Scriptures “are perfect.” and Origen says, “Therefore we should not take our own ideas…”

You are actually saying the Scriptures aren’t sufficient but you can use your ideas and beliefs to make them so. Is that correct?