Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[Old_Scholar]

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.

I see you don’t deny the changes…

 

[Old_Scholar]

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

Luther couldn’t canonize anything.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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

Not true. You have some books written by God only knows who, but they have never claimed inspiration and certainly don’t fit the criteria to be “God-breathed.” You can’t call them Scripture.

 

[cascherman]

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…

OS, I will not say I want you banned, but I must admit, almost all of your posts have some comment that is pretty far off from the truth about A: what we say, and B: what the Catholic Church believes. I.E., you claim the Catholic Church supports gay clergy, women clergy, etc.?! Huh? The CC is one of the only churches that refuses to accept these things.

Reminds me of a quote that is pretty common around here:
“Not 100 people hate the Catholic Church; but there are many who hate what they think is the Catholic Church.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen

I think you may have blinders on and only want to see out the side of them when the truth about the Catholic Church is in front of you.

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

Right. Great example of what I said above.
Again, Council of Rome, Pope Damasus listed the canon in the Decretum Gelasianum and low and behold, the Catholic Bible defined.
tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm
ntcanon.org/Decretum_Gelasianum.shtml

Those blinders are getting you again. Come on brother, don’t repeat false rhetoric that is not able to be substantiated.

edit and by common sense this post of yours is blatantly wrong as well. You say no one EVER considered the apocrypha scriptural. Well, I do, and the Catholic Church does, and the Orthodox Church does too. That makes up about 1.2-1.5 billion people living right now. So, it looks like you’re in the minority by NOT believing the deuterocanon is scriptural.

 

[pete_29]

**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…

I don’t mean to be rude, but it has already been proven on another thread that your “history” is questionable at best. I am not an educated man, and I gave you proof that you were wrong on at least one topic. If a man like me can pick apart one of your arguements, you might want to rethink your position.

Moderators, I apologize if this response sounds angry. This is not my intention. OS is making himself or herself out to be an expert on Church history and I am trying to show that this person has a questionable view on Church history.

 

[cascherman]

Not true. You have some books written by God only knows who, but they have never claimed inspiration and certainly don’t fit the criteria to be “God-breathed.” You can’t call them Scripture.

…
I see no real facts here. Sounds like your opinion.

 

[mercygate]

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?

No. The rule of clerical celibacy is not a doctrine. It is a discipline. If it were a doctrine it would be framed as a *sine qua non *of Holy Orders. As I stated in my post above, even the Latin Church admits married men to Holy Orders in certain cases.

As for Papal infallibility, it is a subset of the principle of the indefectibility of the Church, which in turn arises from Mt. 16:18-19. It is a refinement of the original understanding. That is what doctrinal development does: more clearly understand something as you go forward. For example, the Church always believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but defined the process in detail as Transubstantiation only in the 13th Century. The core belief stands: Real Presence.

 

[adrift]

I am giving you the reference and you can find it in any legitimate encyclopedia. Mine came from Encarta. Just go there and inquire about the Jewish Canon. And by the way, the Palestinian Canon was the one you want.

**

Now if you read that carefully, you will see that the canon was closed by 200 BC but was begun in 400 BC.**

But you probably won’t believe an encyclopedia either.

I read carefully and noted what you did not include

In the meantime other books were being compiled, written, and used in worship and study. By the time the Book of Sirach was written (circa 180 bc), an idea of a tripartite Bible had developed. The contents of the third part, the Ketubim (Writings), remained somewhat fluid in Judaism until after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in AD 70. By the end of the 1st century ad the rabbis in Palestine had established the final list.

An every one can read, the final list was at the end of the 1st century. This of course is from your own source.

This deposit is referred to as “Sacred Tradition” and enfolds the Holy Scriptures, the unchanging oral doctrine of the Church, and the perview of the Magesterium to declare authoritatively and without error the whole council of God.

Try II Peter, chapter 3.

Try? There was no relation to his question and your answer. Maybe you should try again.
Gutenberg invented the movable type and he was Catholic. He printed the Gutenberg Bible using the Vulgate version of the bible. People were mostly illiterate a fact you can easily verify if you do any research. The bible was taught to the common folk through windows of the church. I saw one church that had most of the new testament. That the bible was kept from the people is so ignorant. I guess you have never been to a mass. We hear the bible every Sunday and throughout three years all of it is read.

 

[juliamajor]

Not true. You have some books written by God only knows who, but they have never claimed inspiration and certainly don’t fit the criteria to be “God-breathed.” You can’t call them Scripture.

Most of Bible Books are written by “God Knows who” Names of the books were acquired through tradition…Never Claimed inspiration?. Every book in the bible claims inspiration? Not that I’ve read! :Esther" & Canticle of Canticles fall under the none claiming of Inspiration which begs the question-Does claiming inspiration make it so?Does Esther’s none claiming of inspiration make it any less inspired? should it be removed along with Canticles?If I go through every book of scripture I bet I will find many books that don’t start with"thus says the lord" which is a prophetic formula.So how do you prove or establish canonicity? How do you know that the Reformers got it right?Were they infallible in their choice of the Hebrew Canon? I have been studying and teaching the Deuteros - and my students have come to appreciate these neglected intertestamental books and how they shine a light on the NT.

 

[mercygate]

**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.

This was in the heat of the Cathar catastrophe and those bibles were heretical mistranslations.

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."

Again: heretical translation.

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.

Not a bad idea, all things considered. The index was in effect until the 1960s.

**

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

** Well, duh! In the Catholic view, if it isn’t the Catholic bible, it isn’t the Bible. The Church has always taken great care to guard the translations of Scripture. That is her job.

**

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,

You can say that again.

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.

You gotta problem widdat? Note the red text above.

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.

Again, a caution against heresy.

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.

The Catholic Church had a vernacular English Bible on the market some 20 years before the KJV came out.

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

Every single instance you raise here came up in specific local circumstances, and if you carefully read the language and know the circumstances, you see the qualifying conditions.

 

[justasking4]

This was in the heat of the Cathar catastrophe and those bibles were heretical mistranslations.
Again: heretical translation.

Not a bad idea, all things considered. The index was in effect until the 1960s.

** **Well, duh! In the Catholic view, if it isn’t the Catholic bible, it isn’t the Bible. The Church has always taken great care to guard the translations of Scripture. That is her job.

****You can say that again. You gotta problem widdat? Note the red text above.

Again, a caution against heresy.

The Catholic Church had a vernacular English Bible on the market some 20 years before the KJV came out.
Every single instance you raise here came up in specific local circumstances, and if you carefully read the language and know the circumstances, you see the qualifying conditions.

Does the catholic church today consider protestant translations of the Scripture to be heretical?

 

[cascherman]

Does the catholic church today consider protestant translations of the Scripture to be heretical?

incomplete.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Does the catholic church today consider protestant translations of the Scripture to be heretical?

cascherman
incomplete.

Incomplete but not heretical?

 

[mercygate]

Does the catholic church today consider protestant translations of the Scripture to be heretical?

Depends. The New World Translation IS heretical. The RSV and RSV-Catholic edition, were prepared by an ecumenical team and represent the best of collaborative integrity. Everybody knew I was scripturally and theologically trained when I came into the Church; they knew I had a house full of Bibles: Catholic, Protestant, Greek, Hebrew. Nobody suggested that I dump any of them on the grounds that they were heretical. I still find certain passages in the KJV to be closer to the Greek than some of the newer and supposedly “better” translations.

Translations today tend to be better than in the 13th century (no kidding), and since more people can read the original languages, you can’t get away with sloshing the text. That said, a LOT of damage can be done by the notes in a study Bible.

 

[mercygate]

Incomplete but not heretical?

Good point. Insofar as the short canon eliminates passages that support Catholic doctrine, they are tained by the cloud of heresy. However, a lot of Protestant translations include the Deuterocanonical books. It’s not the Bible’s fault that the publisher doesn’t believe the Deuterocanon to be inspired.

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;3261053]Depends. The New World Translation IS heretical.

i agree.

The RSV and RSV-Catholic edition, were prepared by an ecumenical team and represent the best of collaborative integrity. Everybody knew I was scripturally and theologically trained when I came into the Church; they knew I had a house full of Bibles: Catholic, Protestant, Greek, Hebrew. Nobody suggested that I dump any of them on the grounds that they were heretical. I still find certain passages in the KJV to be closer to the Greek than some of the newer and supposedly “better” translations.

Translations today tend to be better than in the 13th century (no kidding), and since more people can read the original languages, you can’t get away with sloshing the text. That said, a LOT of damage can be done by the notes in a study Bible.

Good points.

 

[guanophore]

That’s utterly amazing to me. I just can’t wrap my puny brain around that logic. How do they clear it in their minds? My mind keeps going in circles when I try to process that logic.

"…in the futility of their minds; they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart; they have become callous…Eph 4:17-19

 

[Philthy]

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.

I see, so the truth is there but its impossible for everyone to recognize it as the truth. But that’s OK because its still the truth!!! :whacky:

 

[Stratiotes]

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

I think Jesus and the writers of the New Testament will beg to differ with you on that assertion: A few of the references to the Deuterocanonicals in the NT. If you find yourself a good unbiased Bible cross-reference, you’ll find a lot more. Needless to say, Protestant bibles are not likely to provide the cross references you seek.

 

[Philthy]

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 quite a card old “scholar”. No doubt you chose that name for yourself in perfect humility. With respect to Scripture you have dillydallied over several areas creating the distinct impression that you think you actually know something worthwhile. Im not buyin’ it. Lets start with your “Godbreathed” discussion. Let me break it to you gently: Paul was using the term figuratively. Scripture was not breathed by God, it was penned by men. God led them certainly, but it had nothing to do with breathing.
*Then you proceeded on your rant about the Church preventing people from reading bibles. Its all been debunked of course. But all I can add is that you are the best argument for restricting unsupervised bible reading I have come across in a while! *
Lastly I’ll comment on your absurd claim that all Scripture claims inspiration. Have you ever read the introduction to the Gospel of Luke? There is not even a hint of inspiration there. Lets start with some basics: he isnt even an Apostle! Not only that, but he doesnt even pretend to be writing under inspiration. In fact, he goes out of his way to explain that he has simply gathered information from others to write down. He never claims that God “inspired him” to write, gather, discuss or collate the information. On the contrary, he sounds very much like a reporter gathering information. Very uninspiring. I wont even get into the ECFs who claimed to be inspired by God or that the Holy Spirit was speaking through them - but that didnt qualify their writings as Scripture.
I know some on these forums would like to see you banned for dragging out all your tired old half truths, but the more I think about it your lack of intellectual clarity, lack of sincerity, and lack of charity do more good for the Catholic faith than harm. I say “Keep up the good work!”