Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[PhilVaz]

<< Please show me in the Bible where being a lesbian is wrong. >>

Romans 1:26-27 –

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” (KJV)

Perhaps a little obscure, but lesbianism is there. Perhaps not the Girls Gone Wild variety. But I don’t believe in sola scriptura, and neither does Schaff, Kelly, Pelikan, Yves Congar, or James White.

Phil P

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
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?

 

[juliamajor]

You’re dodging the question. You know the New Testament books claim inspiration but you can’t find that any of the apocrypha books do. They definitely don’t. In fact we have no idea who wrote them

Actually we know certainly that the book of Sirach was written by Sirach . Not too many books of the can claim such provenance.

 

[ralphinal]

<< Please show me in the Bible where being a lesbian is wrong. >>

Romans 1:26-27 –

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” (KJV)

Perhaps a little obscure, but lesbianism is there. Perhaps not the Girls Gone Wild variety. But I don’t believe in sola scriptura, and neither does Schaff, Kelly, Pelikan, Yves Congar, or James White.

Phil P

Ok, I’ll take that as one. What about the other two questions that I posted?

 

[inthecloud]

Most Sola Scriptura anticatholics bigots these days are also creationists.
Do they realize Creatio Exnihilo is not scriptural without 2 Maccabees that BTW is not in their Bibles?
Just curious.

 

[slyboots]

Old Scholar said “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).”
Does that include the scriptures that protestants refuse to have in their Bibles? He said “All…” so I must believe it does. Hmmm.

 

[justasking4]

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.

The lesbian issue has been answered.
Your second one would violate the command that you shall not murder.

Can’t think off hand the problem would be with human cloning. What do you think?

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

****I’ll start with this one:

It is a defined dogma of the RCC that not only is salvation impossible outside the Church but that to be saved one must be baptized in the RCC, profess the Catholic faith and participate in the communion of the RCC.

This is verified by at least two ecumenical councils and three popes. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII promulgated the Bull Unam Sanctam,**** wherein these defining words are found:

“With faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) **outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin **. . . Furthermore, we declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

It seems so clear but then let’s look at the new Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation.”

1. "How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body. . .
2. "This affirmation is not aimed at **those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: **

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc. - Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 244 w/Imprimi Potest of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)

My goodness—am I reading that right? Has the church changed its mind once again? This tells us that it is possible for even those who have never heard of Jesus Christ or the Roman Catholic Church might be saved. Now if this isn’t a complete reversal, I don’t know what is.

Now I expect to get all the reasons this really doesn’t mean what it says…

Protestants don’t have any problem with salvation. They simply believe the Scriptures—the ones that can’t possible be interpreted by individuals:

*Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24) *

Another long held RCC doctrine was the doctrine of Limbo and in 2006, the pope abolished that doctrine. Not there is no need to have to list that one because it is very well known by all because we lived through that one.

So I will continue to list dogma and doctrinal changes as time goes along.

 

[ricmat]

The lesbian issue has been answered.
Your second one would violate the command that you shall not murder.

Can’t think off hand the problem would be with human cloning. What do you think?

One problem with human cloning is that currently the only way to do it is by destroying embryos. So that also violates the 5th commandment.

Also, the issue of “soul” is not absolutely clear in the case of a clone…so it’s best to avoid it.

And…the motive behind cloning has to be considered. If you plan on growing a clone for “spare parts” then that’s obviously sinful. Or if you need a bunch of identical clones to run medical tests on. That would be wrong because you are creating a (possible) human for utilitarian purposes. No love was involved, no marriage act was involved.

 

[Stratiotes]

Another one for sola scriptura - where does scripture teach that polygamy is wrong? Only overseers are required to be the husbands of but one wife - what about everybody else?

As surely as you argue one side - you will find the evidence in favor of polygamy in scripture far outweighs anything you can find against it. Even Martin Luther had some difficulty with this one when asked and finally decided that polygamy must not be forbidden after all.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar, how long are you going to play this rope-a-dope game? This is highly indicative of insincerity.

You walk out into the arena of ideas and you toss out preposterous statements then wait for everyone to give you well thought out rationale for why what you said is absurd. They you sit back on the ropes in a defensive posture and make one liner rhetorical comments like this to produce the next salvo of replies. You repeat this pattern of hit and run to the ropes ad-nauseum knowing full well that you are not here to learn nor productively debate but only to play a rhetorical game.

This rope-a-dope game is wasting a lot of people’s time while giving you an anti-catholic platform to take cheap below-the-belt shots at The Church.

You might want to ask yourself what it means if you are wrong about Catholicism on the day of judgement?

If I was moderator I’d ban you.

James

Excuse me—but I thought the purpose of this forum was to discuss Catholic beliefs. Am I wrong? How can you properly discuss them if no one disagrees with you. Are we to just say Hi, how are you today? What did you do today that was interesting? Isn’t the weather nice…

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar said “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).”
Does that include the scriptures that protestants refuse to have in their Bibles? He said “All…” so I must believe it does. Hmmm.

There is no Scripture that is not in the Protestant bible. None of the apocryphal books have ever been declared or considered Scriptural.

 

[justasking4]

Another one for sola scriptura - where does scripture teach that polygamy is wrong? Only overseers are required to be the husbands of but one wife - what about everybody else?

As surely as you argue one side - you will find the evidence in favor of polygamy in scripture far outweighs anything you can find against it. Even Martin Luther had some difficulty with this one when asked and finally decided that polygamy must not be forbidden after all.

I think Matthew 19:3-6 supports one man-woman for marriage. This is based on Gen 2:24.
There are also no passages in the NT that come even close to promoting polygamy for Christians.

 

[Orionthehunter]

There is no Scripture that is not in the Protestant bible. None of the apocryphal books have ever been declared or considered Scriptural.

Who has the authority to declare or consider what is Scripture?

 

[Inquirer]

Are you caying that Protestants chabge their minds as the Catholics have changed dogmas and doctrines throughout the years? So we all change our minds…Is that it?

No, I’m saying SS is untenable as a practical concept … I know there are multiple posts you’re trying to answer … but I do hope you’re actually reading them carefully and thinking things through before you reply.

 

[juliamajor]

There is no Scripture that is not in the Protestant bible. None of the apocryphal books have ever been declared or considered Scriptural.

Sez Who? For Catholics East And west Have Scripture that has been removed by others.

 

[Tomster]

****I’ll start with this one:

It is a defined dogma of the RCC that not only is salvation impossible outside the Church but that to be saved one must be baptized in the RCC, profess the Catholic faith and participate in the communion of the RCC.

This is verified by at least two ecumenical councils and three popes. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII promulgated the Bull Unam Sanctam,**** wherein these defining words are found:

“With faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) **outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin **. . . Furthermore, we declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

It seems so clear but then let’s look at the new Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation.”

1. "How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body. . .
2. "This affirmation is not aimed at **those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: **

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc. - Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 244 w/Imprimi Potest of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)

My goodness—am I reading that right? Has the church changed its mind once again? This tells us that it is possible for even those who have never heard of Jesus Christ or the Roman Catholic Church might be saved. Now if this isn’t a complete reversal, I don’t know what is.

Now I expect to get all the reasons this really doesn’t mean what it says…

Protestants don’t have any problem with salvation. They simply believe the Scriptures—the ones that can’t possible be interpreted by individuals:

*Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24) *

Another long held RCC doctrine was the doctrine of Limbo and in 2006, the pope abolished that doctrine. Not there is no need to have to list that one because it is very well known by all because we lived through that one.

So I will continue to list dogma and doctrinal changes as time goes along.

O.S.,

You have got to be kidding! Membership in the Church is necessary for two reasons. First, it is the ordinary means of salvation. In it alone the true faith is found and the means of grace abound. St. Irenaeus says: “Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of of God is, there is the Church in all grace.” Second, Christ commands it. Can any exceptions, real or apparent, be pleaded against these reasons? Concerning the first reason, it is said than an extraordinary means may sometimes be substituted for an ordinary means; as for the second reason, invincible ignorance or impossibility of fulfillment excuses from the command. The Pope Pius IX says: “They who are invincibly ignorant of the true religion are not in the eyes of the Lord guilty of the sin [of being outside the Church].” That without which salvation is utterly impossible is possesion of sanctifying grace. Either through perfect love or the valid reception of a sacrament, one can die in the state of grace who is not in external communion with the Church. The person, however, has grace only on condition that he desires to do all that God requires for salvation. Since membership in the Church is one of these requirements, he must have an implicit desire to belong to it. If then he has grace, he is united to Christ, and consequently in some way to the Church. But no one is saved who is not in Christ and whoever is in Christ is in some way in the Church. Therefore there are no real exceptions to the dictum that salvation is impossible outside the Church.

For further study read Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical "The Mystical Body of Christ.

 

[cascherman]

Old Scholar,

You still have yet to substantiate your claim that the OT was unanimously defined by the year 200 BC.

 

[Tomster]

There is no Scripture that is not in the Protestant bible. None of the apocryphal books have ever been declared or considered Scriptural.

You are referring of course to the canon Rev. Dr. Luther infallibly canonized?

 

[Old_Scholar]

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:

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

**I guess you need a little history lesson on your church. The RCC did in fact ban **the reading of the Bible by the common man.

COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D.

Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.

And the council of Tarragona even wanted them burned.

The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon, ruled that:

"No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion."

Pope Pius IV had a list of the forbidden books compiled and officially prohibited them in the Index of Trent (Index Librorum Prohibitorum) of 1559. This is an excerpt:

Rule II

Books of arch-heretics - those who after 1515 have invented or incited heresy or who have been or still are heads and leaders of heretics, such as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Hubmaier, Schwenckfeld, and the like — whatever their name, title or argumentation — are prohibited without exception. As far as other heretics are concerned, only those books are condemned without exception which deal ex professo with religion. Others will be permitted after Catholic theologians have examined and approved them by the order of bishops and inquisitors. Likewise, Catholic books written by those who subsequently fell into heresy or by those who after their lapse returned into the bosom of the Church can be permitted after approval by a theological faculty or the inquisition.

**In other words, if it isn’t the RCC Bible, it is banned!

And they didn’t even want you to be able to keep them:**

Rule IV

Since experience teaches that, if the reading of the Holy Bible in the vernacular is permitted generally without discrimination, more damage than advantage will result because of the boldness of men, the judgment of bishops and inquisitors is to serve as guide in this regard. Bishops and inquisitors may, in accord with the counsel of the local priest and confessor, allow Catholic translations of the Bible to be read by those of whom they realize that such reading will not lead to the detriment but to the increase of faith and piety. The permission is to be given in writing. Whoever reads or has such a translation in his possession without this permission cannot be absolved from his sins until he has turned in these Bibles …

And it wasn’t just many years ago:

From the Encyclical UBI PRIMUM of POPE LEO XII, MAY 5, 1824:

1. In virtue of Our apostolic office, **We too exhort you to try every means of keeping your flock from those deadly pastures.Do everything possible **to see that the faithful observe strictly the rules of our Congregation of the Index. Convince them that to allow holy Bibles in the ordinary language, wholesale and without distinction, would on account of human rashness cause more harm than good.

The RCC has done everything in its power to keep the common man from owning or even reading a Bible in his own language. After the Reformation, they forbade the possession of any Bible except the Roman Catholic Church Bible.

For those who claim this didn’t happen, you just don’t know anything about the history of your church…