Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[elvisman]

First there was the Church of Jerusalem, the Church at Antioch, The Church at Phidelphia, the Church at Alexandria and the Church at Rome. Then they started multiplying rapidly. They were all INDEPENDENT CHURCHES not under anyone’s rule except their bishop.

ONE Church, my confused friend - NOT many differeing factions.

---

“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.” 2 Thess. 2:15

---

***“I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: *****one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; **
one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” Ephesians 4:1-6

---

---

 

[PhilVaz]

pwr << If this is the case, I don’t understand the significance of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 … in the apologetic of a Catholic who accepts the material sufficiency of scripture since that particular Catholic, based on the article, would believe everything that is found in scripture is found in tradition and and everything in tradition is found in scripture. >>

Simple. I tried to deal with this in my buried posts a few pages back.

Both the “material sufficiency” (MS) Catholic AND the “partim-partim” (PP) Catholic do not believe Scripture contained the WHOLE faith at the time 1 and 2 Thessalonians were written. Neither does the sola scriptura believing Protestant for that matter. These are very early epistles (i.e. 50’s AD), written before the Gospels and most of the writings of St. Paul. So at that time the ORAL teaching obviously contained MORE than the written. You can also read about the preaching in the book of Acts and know that what the apostles were teaching everyone contained MUCH MORE than the written (e.g. book of Acts itself).

So 2 Thess 2:15 still stands against sola scriptura that we must hold to ALL apostolic teaching, whether oral or written, that sola scriptura was not true at that time. “One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is sufficient” and “Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation” as I have quoted James White. So at that time sola scriptura was not valid, was not practiced, was not true.

For the MS Catholic – as the New Testament was written, completed, and collected into a full canon, the oral apostolic tradition became less important as far as doctrine is concerned. All doctrines are found implicitly or explicitly in Scripture according to material sufficiency. There are still practices or customs that may be passed on orally in the life, liturgy, and practice of the Church (e.g. prayers for the dead, infant baptism, how to observe liturgy, etc) that may not be mentioned or spelled out in Scripture. The Church is also essential as the final authority in interpreting both tradition and Scripture (see my summary quotes from Schaff, Kelly, and Pelikan a few pages back).

For the PP Catholic – some doctrines are passed on and found in oral apostolic tradition, and some doctrines are found in Scripture, or more clearly in Scripture.

According to either position, 2 Thess 2:15 still means sola scriptura was not valid and was not practiced by Jesus, the people of Jesus’ day, the apostles, or their immediate successors (Timothy, Titus, etc) as James White has admitted both in print and debate since 1997. Once again from Great Debate II (1997 on sola scriptura):

Matatics: Did the people in Jesus’ day practice sola scriptura? The hearers of our Lord, Yes or No, Mr. White.
White: I have said over, and over, and over again, that sola scriptura –
M: It’s a Yes or No.
W: – is a doctrine that speaks to the normative condition of the church, not to times of enscripturation.
M: So your answer is No?
W: That is exactly what my answer is.
M: Thank you.
W: It is no.
M: Did the apostles practice sola scriptura, Mr. White? Yes or No?
W: No.
M: Thank you.

See and hear this debate portion

Phil P

 

[Pwrlftr]

pwr << If this is the case, I don’t understand the significance of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 … in the apologetic of a Catholic who accepts the material sufficiency of scripture since that particular Catholic, based on the article, would believe everything that is found in scripture is found in tradition and and everything in tradition is found in scripture. >>

Simple. I tried to deal with this in my buried posts a few pages back.

Both the “material sufficiency” (MS) Catholic AND the “partim-partim” (PP) Catholic do not believe Scripture contained the WHOLE faith at the time 1 and 2 Thessalonians were written. Neither does the sola scriptura believing Protestant for that matter. These are very early epistles (i.e. 50’s AD), written before the Gospels and most of the writings of St. Paul. So at that time the ORAL teaching obviously contained MORE than the written. You can also read about the preaching in the book of Acts and know that what the apostles were teaching everyone contained MUCH MORE than the written (e.g. book of Acts itself).

So 2 Thess 2:15 still stands against sola scriptura that we must hold to ALL apostolic teaching, whether oral or written, that sola scriptura was not true at that time. “One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is sufficient” and “Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation” as I have quoted James White. So at that time sola scriptura was not valid, was not practiced, was not true.

For the MS Catholic – as the New Testament was written, completed, and collected into a full canon, the oral apostolic tradition became less important as far as doctrine is concerned. All doctrines are found implicitly or explicitly in Scripture according to material sufficiency. There are still practices or customs that may be passed on orally in the life, liturgy, and practice of the Church (e.g. prayers for the dead, infant baptism, how to observe liturgy, etc) that may not be mentioned or spelled out in Scripture. The Church is also essential as the final authority in interpreting both tradition and Scripture (see my summary quotes from Schaff, Kelly, and Pelikan a few pages back).

For the PP Catholic – some doctrines are passed on and found in oral apostolic tradition, and some doctrines are found in Scripture, or more clearly in Scripture.

According to either position, 2 Thess 2:15 still means sola scriptura was not valid and was not practiced by Jesus, the people of Jesus’ day, the apostles, or their immediate successors (Timothy, Titus, etc) as James White has admitted both in print and debate since 1997. Once again from Great Debate II (1997 on sola scriptura):

Matatics: Did the people in Jesus’ day practice sola scriptura? The hearers of our Lord, Yes or No, Mr. White.
White: I have said over, and over, and over again, that sola scriptura –
M: It’s a Yes or No.
W: – is a doctrine that speaks to the normative condition of the church, not to times of enscripturation.
M: So your answer is No?
W: That is exactly what my answer is.
M: Thank you.
W: It is no.
M: Did the apostles practice sola scriptura, Mr. White? Yes or No?
W: No.
M: Thank you.

See and hear this debate portion

Phil P

I must have missed your earlier post.

I’ll take a look at what you posted and probably PM you if that’s all right.

 

[justasking4]

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.

Where is it written that an unbeliever is not permitted to “access the content of the Sacred Traditions”? Is this your opinion or the offical teachings of your church? If your church can you point me to that document?

 

[PhilVaz]

pwr << I’ll take a look at what you posted and probably PM you if that’s all right. >>

All right, that’s fine. If you want the biggest book on “Tradition” and a good defense of material sufficiency, I would suggest finding Tradition and Traditions by Congar at a university or seminary library. Or his smaller The Meaning of Tradition.

Even if material sufficiency is true (there is a strong case for it made by Congar in the Fathers), it doesn’t mean certain things can’t still be passed on in the life, liturgy and practice of the Church that are not expressly or explicitly written down in Scripture. All the Fathers made various appeals to this “tradition” (whether oral apostolic tradition, or the “tradition” of the Chuch or the Fathers, etc) while laying great emphasis on the importance of supporting all doctrines by Scripture. The Fathers and saints did this especially with regard to the heretics who only appealed to Scripture. In that case the Fathers had no choice but to appeal to Scripture as well since that was their common ground. Just as Catholics and Protestants today argue from Scripture alone at times.

Congar lists several customs or practices that were believed by the Fathers to be passed on purely by oral apostolic teaching. I have quoted those before both here and on Envoy’s board. I would have to look that post up.

Phil P

 

[mercygate]

Where is it written that an unbeliever is not permitted to “access the content of the Sacred Traditions”? Is this your opinion or the offical teachings of your church? If your church can you point me to that document?

I think guanophore might have mis-spoken; he’s usually a lot steadier than that. Let’s see. Could he have meant that without professing the faith of the Church, one may not approach the sacraments?

C’mon guano: what’s the story?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3257725]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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.

guanophore
Really? According to who? Jesus did not seem to think so…

Check out a good book on the history of the canon and you will see what i mean.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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.

guanophore
No, the “oracles” are the expressions of the Divine. These came in oral as well as written form. Your defintion of “oracles” is limting and bigoted.

What then are the “oracles” of God?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Secondly are there any direct quotes from the apocrypha itself by Jesus or the apostles?

guanophore
Yes, many! Since Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint, which contained the deuteros, that is the source of all their quotes.

Can you give me a couple of examples that are direct quotes from one of the books of the apocrypha?

Quote:

Originally Posted by justasking4
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.”

guanophore
Why would you choose to adopt a canon of the antagonistic Jews, who Jesus clearly stated were wrong, over and above the canon chosen by the God Given authority to speak in reference to Himself.??

Just because many of the Jews rejected Christ does not mean the canon that was handed down to them was in error. Keep in mind that the prophets were Jews and God did speak through these Jewish prophets. Do you deny this?

 

[CentralFLJames]

pwr << If this is the case, I don’t understand the significance of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 … in the apologetic of a Catholic who accepts the material sufficiency of scripture since that particular Catholic, based on the article, would believe everything that is found in scripture is found in tradition and and everything in tradition is found in scripture. >>

Simple. I tried to deal with this in my buried posts a few pages back.

Both the “material sufficiency” (MS) Catholic AND the “partim-partim” (PP) Catholic do not believe Scripture contained the WHOLE faith at the time 1 and 2 Thessalonians were written. Neither does the sola scriptura believing Protestant for that matter. These are very early epistles (i.e. 50’s AD), written before the Gospels and most of the writings of St. Paul. So at that time the ORAL teaching obviously contained MORE than the written. You can also read about the preaching in the book of Acts and know that what the apostles were teaching everyone contained MUCH MORE than the written (e.g. book of Acts itself).

So 2 Thess 2:15 still stands against sola scriptura that we must hold to ALL apostolic teaching, whether oral or written, that sola scriptura was not true at that time. “One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is sufficient” and “Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation” as I have quoted James White. So at that time sola scriptura was not valid, was not practiced, was not true.

For the MS Catholic – as the New Testament was written, completed, and collected into a full canon, the oral apostolic tradition became less important as far as doctrine is concerned. All doctrines are found implicitly or explicitly in Scripture according to material sufficiency. There are still practices or customs that may be passed on orally in the life, liturgy, and practice of the Church (e.g. prayers for the dead, infant baptism, how to observe liturgy, etc) that may not be mentioned or spelled out in Scripture. The Church is also essential as the final authority in interpreting both tradition and Scripture (see my summary quotes from Schaff, Kelly, and Pelikan a few pages back).

For the PP Catholic – some doctrines are passed on and found in oral apostolic tradition, and some doctrines are found in Scripture, or more clearly in Scripture.

According to either position, 2 Thess 2:15 still means sola scriptura was not valid and was not practiced by Jesus, the people of Jesus’ day, the apostles, or their immediate successors (Timothy, Titus, etc) as James White has admitted both in print and debate since 1997. Once again from Great Debate II (1997 on sola scriptura):

Matatics: Did the people in Jesus’ day practice sola scriptura? The hearers of our Lord, Yes or No, Mr. White.
White: I have said over, and over, and over again, that sola scriptura –
M: It’s a Yes or No.
W: – is a doctrine that speaks to the normative condition of the church, not to times of enscripturation.
M: So your answer is No?
W: That is exactly what my answer is.
M: Thank you.
W: It is no.
M: Did the apostles practice sola scriptura, Mr. White? Yes or No?
W: No.
M: Thank you.

See and hear this debate portion

Phil P

Great (name removed by moderator)ut Phil.
Can we close the thread now and just say that Sola Scriptura has no validity in the early church and only becomes relevant at all as a concept in a post protestant context but is rendered mute by lack of a universally unifying tradition and rule of faith in the plurality of the Protestant corpus?

Or simplifying with a philosophy of one body one authoritative voice can we assert that the surviving principal tenets of sola scriptura (if any) are already substantially manifest within the monolithic corpus of the One Catholic Church through her liturgy, teaching, bible and tradition?

James

 

[justasking4]

hi again oldscholar;; to which the reply you know is coming which doctrines and dogmas have been changed? i myself know of none but you may.

How about celibate leadership? In the NT men were not forbidden from being leaders in the church by the mere fact they were married.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Where is it written that an unbeliever is not permitted to “access the content of the Sacred Traditions”? Is this your opinion or the offical teachings of your church?** If your church can you point me to that document**?

Can you point us to the names, addresses, phone numbers, weekly tithing records, bank account numbers and roster of all members of your church and the budgets and spending receipts of YOUR church?

James

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

How about celibate leadership? In the NT men were not forbidden from being leaders in the church by the mere fact they were married.

I think this was explained to you before… Priestly celibacy is a discipline of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Rites often do have married priests. In the past, issues rose up as a result of priests having families and children. If the Church wanted to, it could allow its new priests (who have not taken a vow of celibacy) to marry. This is a discipline, not a doctrine.

 

[drafdog]

Scripture was not written all of a piece or at the same time. There was a communal and personal experience of God from which it came. Those writings which were accepted into the canon of inspired scripture grew out of the experience of the Jewish people, the apostles and other early Christians. The traditional stories told around the table about how God relates to mankind are the source of scripture. To say that you accept only the scripture and not the supporting traditional teachings which give rise to it is like saying you accept the cherry but not the tree on which it hangs or the earth from which the tree grows.

Matthew

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Would you happen to know what all the Sacred Traditions of the catholic church is for the past 2000 years?

guanophore
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.

Is there some kind of reference in the catechism itself that says these are all or some of the Sacred Traditions?

 

[mercygate]

How about celibate leadership? In the NT men were not forbidden from being leaders in the church by the mere fact they were married.

Since you have more than 2000 posts on the forums I am incredulous that you bring up this canard.

Celibacy for clergy is a discipline adopted as a standard by the Latin Church in imitation of Our Lord, by His counsel, and with the affirmation of St Paul. You know that the Catholic Church permits the ordination of married men in its Eastern branches and that it has ordained to the priesthood married clergy from other denominations (notably Anglicans) who have converted to the Catholic faith. Clerical celibacy is not a doctrine or a dogma. Therefore this is neither a doctrine nor dogma. Therefore it cannot be raised as a claim that the Church has has changed her teaching.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
How about celibate leadership? In the NT men were not forbidden from being leaders in the church by the mere fact they were married.

Tim Kirchoff
I think this was explained to you before… Priestly celibacy is a discipline of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Rites often do have married priests. In the past, issues rose up as a result of priests having families and children. If the Church wanted to, it could allow its new priests (who have not taken a vow of celibacy) to marry. This is a discipline, not a doctrine.

What do you think this discipline is based on? What doctrine?

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;3260330]
Originally Posted by justasking4
How about celibate leadership? In the NT men were not forbidden from being leaders in the church by the mere fact they were married.

mercygate
Since you have more than 2000 posts on the forums I am incredulous that you bring up this canard.

Celibacy for clergy is a discipline adopted as a standard by the Latin Church in imitation of Our Lord, by His counsel, and with the affirmation of St Paul. You know that the Catholic Church permits the ordination of married men in its Eastern branches and that it has ordained to the priesthood married clergy from other denominations (notably Anglicans) who have converted to the Catholic faith. Clerical celibacy is not a doctrine or a dogma. Therefore this is neither a doctrine nor dogma. Therefore it cannot be raised as a claim that the Church has has changed her teaching.

Of course its a doctrine. Here is what the word doctrine means:
a rule or principle that forms the basis of a belief, theory, or policy. It bases it celibacy rule on various passages in Scripture which it takes to mandate celibacy for its leaders.

Secondly, is it not also true the catholic church has not always taught that the pope is not infallible?

 

[ralphinal]

What do you think this discipline is based on? What doctrine?

I would start with Matt 19:12 about some who renounce marriage for the Kingdom of Heaven. Then look at Jesus, he never married. Most of the the Apostles were unmarried, including St. Paul. See 1 Cor 7:8 and 1 Cor 7:32-35 about being married.

The Church teaches that if you become a priest, you cannot then marry. You can be married and become a priest, under certain conditions. AS someone posted, it is not a dogma, it is a discipline. Orthodox allow married men to become preists, if they were married before. Orthodox bishops, however, are chosen from monks and they are always celebate.

 

[PhilVaz]

just << What do you think this discipline [celibacy] is based on? What doctrine? >>

Dan Brown asked the same thing and I responded:

That Jesus was not married to Mary Magdalene, and remained single and celibate does not make him any less human, which is what Dan Brown and his novel implies. The Bible states Jesus is spiritually married as the bridegroom to His Church, called “the Bride of Christ” (Eph 5:20-33; cf. Matt 25:1ff; Rev 21:2,9; 22:17). That is at least one good theological reason why Jesus remained single and celibate: He is married to His Church, and loves Her as a husband loves his wife. Jesus’ celibacy is in fact the basis for the celibacy of the Catholic priesthood (see recommended books by Cardinal Stickler and Christian Cochini below).

Other examples of single and celibate Jews and prophets include John the Baptist, Jeremiah the prophet, Moses probably after his encounter with God, the Essene community at Qumran, the great St. Paul the Apostle, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus, according to Catholics and Orthodox Christians, etc. Jesus Himself said some become eunuchs (virgins or celibates) for the sake of the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:10-12). St. Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 7 it is sometimes better to remain single as he himself was; in 1 Corinthians 9 he mentions other apostles having wives, but never mentions Jesus having a wife when it would have been greatly advantageous to his argument (see chapter by Darrell Bock, “Was Jesus Married?” in Breaking the Da Vinci Code).

Two sources:

The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundation by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius Press, 1995)
The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy by Christian Cochini (Ignatius Press, 1990)

Thank you, answered. Jesus was celibate, therefore his priests are celibate. But some priests are married, we can make exceptions. It is a discipline, not a doctrine or infallible dogma.

But off topic in this thread. I’m waiting for someone to tell me that Schaff, Kelly, Pelikan, Yves Congar, and James White are all wrong on sola scriptura and the Fathers. And why they are all wrong.

Phil P

 

[ralphinal]

Dear Followers of some version of Sola Scriptura,

Please show me in the Bible where human cloning is wrong.
Please show me in the Bible where embreyonic stem cell research is wrong.
Please show me in the Bible where being a lesbian is wrong.

Thank you for your time and concern.

 

[epostle]

I find it a little strange that I am considered a bigot simply because my faith is strictly Scriptural and you are not, yet you are the one who doesn’t believe Scripture…How odd!

What is odd is that scripture itself refutes scripture alone, as scripture does not support such an invention born from Nominalism propagated by the rich and powerful which appealed to a bourgeois class of northern Europe in the 16th century. “Scripture alone” was a doctrine dependent on the invention of the printing press. It is the private opinions of scripture held by Arius, Nestorius, and virtually every heretic of the patristic period that interpret scripture apart from the Church, much the same way you do, Old Scholar.

Anasthasius did not use scripture alone to refute Arius, he used scripture as understood by the Church to refute Arius. A detailed explanation can be found here:

envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.4/coverstory.html

I don’t consider you a bigot for falling for the traditions of men, I consider your statement to be that of classical hate cultist bigotry:

Do you consider issuing an edict that the common man is not allowed to read the Scriptures as “hiding the Scriptures?”

The Church never forbade the reading of scriptures, and you have not one shred of evidence to support this falsehood. This charge is but another case of bearing false witness, a violation of the 8th commandment. You have been corrected on this matter previously. What was forbidden was the reading of heretical scriptures, and it is the Tradition of the Church to preserve and proclaim the true scriptures, otherwise, you would not have any.

In a few weeks, you will repeat this hateful lie, because you accept false teachers who have made such a ridiculous “infallible” claims that you keep repeating.

members.aol.com/johnprh/latinbible.html

members.tripod.com/~frjoe/bigot6.htm

members.aol.com/johnprh/reading.html

saint-mike.org/apologetics/qa/Answers/Church_History/h000831Yannick.html