Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[ralphinal]

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.

It has been a while since I had genetics in College. An embryo is a fertilized egg. Once is it fertilized, it is a human. At that point, how is it cloned? I thought that you used an unfertilized eggs.

As for the points about the soul and the motive, please show me that in scripture. That is the point. Where does it say that all babies had to be made through the marrage act? Where does it say love has to be involved? Where does it say that we cannot create humans for utilitarian reasons?

Someone caught the fifth commandment as embryonic stem cell research. Where does it say that the embryop is human? Where does it say that the soul is infused at conception? Where does it say that in vitro is wrong (or is it wrong)? These are some of the moral issues of today. Please show me where it is in there.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I dunno. This all seems needlessly pejorative. The KJV was a very good translation in its day and certainly no more problematic than the Latin Vulgate. Nobody (except maybe the KJV-only crowd) claims that any translation holds the same authority as the autograph.

Given the paucity of ancient-language manuscripts available in the 16th & 17th centuries, the KJV represents a very high achievement. Moreover, when the translators did their work, they consulted the Douay-Rheims translation, and then in the 18th Century, when Bishop Challoner revised the Douoay-Rheims version, he consulted the KJV.

I have to agree and plead guilty on all points.

If it helps to mitigate guilt to a status of veniality I will admit that I did have the “nothing but KJV” club in mind in this recreational exposition. So, I am hereby self-imposing a rosary penance for the intention of converting Protestants to the Catholic Church.

Your elaboration of the bible translation distresses me a little though. In learning this I am now nervous that the good Bishop could have exposed The Church to cross threaded ideas and circular co-dependencies in going from DRr1 to KJV to DRr2. I though Douay-Rheins was considered the golden standard for the RCC? Somehow the CC holding the DRr2 up side by side to KJV as a sanity check just does not “feel” morally proper to me. But pragmatically I suppose I do see merit in using a non-benevolent reference as a free worst-case critical comparison to red-flag areas in need of a thorough double check. But personally my own common sense tells me that a certain at-arms-length protocol is both prudent, chaste and healthy when flirting in joint ecumenical affairs.

I’ll hold it in faith the DRr2 fathers were chaperoned and could never cave into a temptation to consumate an act of venality nor plagiarism with the other side.

James

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

It’s remarkable. Even with the actual writings, you still deny it. You’re just making excuses now. Try and be honest…

 

[wanner47]

It’s remarkable. Even with the actual writings, you still deny it. You’re just making excuses now. Try and be honest…

Oh, the irony in this statement is just *too *amusing.

Old Scholar, by your logic, I could write my OWN Bible, and take out/include books at my leisure, insert my own words, etc. and use it as the basis of my own theology – and you wouldn’t have a problem with that. In fact, I could insist that YOUR Church use it as God-inspired Scripture, and they would have NO way (or authority) to deny it.

So, when are you going to start using my new Bible?

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

Are you able to refute any of this?

 

[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’m afraid that’s a little typical…When you can’t refute something you claimed was not true, you just change the subject. Do you admit that dogma and doctrine has been changed?

 

[guanophore]

So you don’t believe multiple churches can have the same set of truths?

There are no “multiple churches”. Jesus founded only one Church. He only has One Body. He is not a Head attached to “bodies”.

 

[Old_Scholar]

There are no “multiple churches”. Jesus founded only one Church. He only has One Body. He is not a Head attached to “bodies”.

**In the book of revelation, God gave orders to write to the seven churches and told John what to say. He mentioned their good things and their bad. He said he would vomit on the church of Laodocea.

If Jesus had established only one church, then why would God want to write to seven different churches?

I believe all the churches should have been teaching the same thing but apparently some of them were straying. However God did not tell John to simply write the pope and get them all straightened out. I wonder why?**

 

[Old_Scholar]

Oh, the irony in this statement is just *too *amusing.

Old Scholar, by your logic, I could write my OWN Bible, and take out/include books at my leisure, insert my own words, etc. and use it as the basis of my own theology – and you wouldn’t have a problem with that. In fact, I could insist that YOUR Church use it as God-inspired Scripture, and they would have NO way (or authority) to deny it.

So, when are you going to start using my new Bible?

Amusing maybe but it should be real easy to refute if it is not true!

 

[wanner47]

Amusing maybe but it should be real easy to refute if it is not true!

First of all, what authority do you have to refute MY Scripture? As long as I claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, that’s all it takes, right?

Second of all, why would you want to do so? According to you, as long as it’s called “the Bible,” it’s A-OK to use, regardless of the translation or who wrote it.

Also according to you, it’s NOT okay for you or your church to tell anyone else that it’s a bad idea to read and use MY BIBLE for their spiritual formation. So why would any “refutation” be necessary?

 

[guanophore]

**Way to go. Your first reference was from an advertisement and then quoting Athananius, you listed this:

For if they speak, a condemnation will follow; and if they be suspected, proofs from Scripture will be cast at them from every side. **

Just as I have been saying, they all combated heretics with Scripture.

No one is saying that scripture is not essential, or sufficient, or that it should not be used to combat heretics. What we are saying is that it was never meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition which produced it.

 

[guanophore]

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

I suppose I would have to know more about the edict. However, it is clear that the “common man” reading the scripture (separated from Sacred Tradition) has caused plenty of chaos. The Church, holding the copyright of the book, understandibly fought hard to keep from having it stolen and bastardized.

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!

Oh, no, it is not just your SS that communicates bigotry by itself. It is the anti-Catholic rhetoric and demeaning attitude.

Take the above, for example. You have stated “you are the one who doesn’t believe scripture”. You don’t know me at all, but have surmised, apparently from my posts, that I don’t “believe scripture” because I do not have the same understanding of it that you do. This is an example of a slanderous and bigoted remark.

But when Protestants disagree you don’t say they’re just sinners…

Actually, I have never said such a thing, on the forum, or off. It was Protestants that taught me to read and study the scripture, and it was 3 years in a Protestant seminary that brought be back to the Catholic Church. In my opinion, many Protestants have a greater reverence for Scripture and a more pure walk with Jesus than most Catholics.

However, making a comment such as the one you make above reveals your prejudice. You are lumping all the Catholics here together, apparently, and don’t care if you indiscrimminately accuse one of another’s shortcomings, just so long as your accusations get flung around. This is an example of bigoted thinking and behavior.

 

[Canto]

Jesus said that upon the rock of Peter he would build His Church and that the gates of hell would never prevail against her Matt 16:18

Paul said “one faith” Eph 4:5

Just as there is one Godhead there is one Church

According to the (Protestant) World Christian Encyclopedia (April, 2003) there are more than 36,400 different Protestant denominations in the world today

Is this ONE faith?
Is this what Jesus had in mind?
36,400+ different Protestant faiths all believeing different things?

Compare that to the Catholic Church believeing the same things since day one even though theology may have deepened.

36,400+ Sorry put sola scriputra aside from being unbiblical has failed

 

[Irish_Saints]

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.

It should also be pointed out that the original 1611 King James Bible actually contained the deuterocanon, and continued to have them in subsequent printings for a number of decades! In fact, it was largely a matter of economics, and not doctrine, that wound up with them being “phased out” of the venerable ol’ KJV!

 

[fellowChristian]

Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1440 in Germany. His Bible was the first to be printed on it. And it was the Latin Vulgate and he was Catholic.

encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564055/Gutenberg_Johannes.html

encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557165/Gutenberg_Bible.html

Martin Luther did translate the Bible from the original languages in which it was written. But before Luther there were German translations of the Bible that had been made from the Latin Vulgate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1614_Low_German_Bible

Martin Luther retained the use of historic liturgical forms and customs of the Catholic Church.

Luther insisted on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine.

Deutsche Messe, or The German Mass, (Deutsche Messe und Ordnung des Gottesdiensts) was published by **Martin Luther **in 1526. It followed his Latin mass (1523).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Messe

 

[stfrancisway]

Luther couldn’t canonize anything.

Who has the authority to canonize scripture? Do I have it? If I don’t have it, who does? Tell me so I can go and worship with them. OS please tell me. I have the right to know the whole truth.

p.s. See you at Mass.

 

[Stratiotes]

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.

Just as an aside, I think the sola scriptura argument is that all scripture is inspired with equal standing and not just the NT. So someone else will argue quite to the contrary - that scripture indeed supports polygamy.

And now you have a problem. That is not sola scriptura per se, that is sola your interpretation of scriptura . Here is the dilemma - one person says polygamy is forbidden, another says it is not. Who do we go to in order to decide a difference between brethren? Ah, now there is the problem with the Protestant view of the church because the Protestant view makes Matt 18:17 ambiguous making the church powerless to decide any differences.

 

[CentralFLJames]

It should also be pointed out that the original 1611 King James Bible actually contained the deuterocanon, and continued to have them in subsequent printings for a number of decades! In fact, it was largely a matter of economics, and not doctrine, that wound up with them being “phased out” of the venerable ol’ KJV!

Interesting factoid. Would it not be ironic if some old traditionalist SS pundit lost his religion after seeing the pope, er, publisher of KJV unilaterally took it upon himself to depreciate the bible simply to cut costs? I too just have to wonder how many sentimentalist SS Protestants in seeing their beloved KJV reduced by the publisher could not help but make the private scriptural analogy to Judas selling out the Kingdom of Heaven and Jesus for 30 pieces of silver?.

The Catholic Church really messed up by not copyrighting the first Bible and letting it become hijacked by revisionists.



James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Who has the authority to canonize scripture? Do I have it? If I don’t have it, who does? Tell me so I can go and worship with them. OS please tell me. I have the right to know the whole truth.

p.s. See you at Mass.

Apparently, from the forgoing discussions the Protestants think the bible publishing house has the canonical authority to revise at will.

James

 

[mercygate]

I have to agree and plead guilty on all points.

If it helps to mitigate guilt to a status of veniality I will admit that I did have the “nothing but KJV” club in mind in this recreational exposition. So, I am hereby self-imposing a rosary penance for the intention of converting Protestants to the Catholic Church.

Your elaboration of the bible translation distresses me a little though. In learning this I am now nervous that the good Bishop could have exposed The Church to cross threaded ideas and circular co-dependencies in going from DRr1 to KJV to DRr2. I though Douay-Rheins was considered the golden standard for the RCC? Somehow the CC holding the DRr2 up side by side to KJV as a sanity check just does not “feel” morally proper to me. But pragmatically I suppose I do see merit in using a non-benevolent reference as a free worst-case critical comparison to red-flag areas in need of a thorough double check. But personally my own common sense tells me that a certain at-arms-length protocol is both prudent, chaste and healthy when flirting in joint ecumenical affairs.

I’ll hold it in faith the DRr2 fathers were chaperoned and could never cave into a temptation to consumate an act of venality nor plagiarism with the other side.

James

The team of scholars that did both the D-R and the KJV were among the best of their day. Even then, the desire to serve the Word, I believe, was the humility card that moved them all. IMHO there must have been a lot of cross-talk off line. Now, I could be just full of baloney, but remembering the collaborations that went on between scientists of the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War, it seems not beyond the realm of possiblity that some of these guys held themselves aloof to the fray…