Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[mercygate]

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

I deny nothing. In the circumstances of the time, I see the provocations and the motives. The pastoral task of the Church is to assure the authenticity of the Sacred Word and to keep people from hurting themselves by handing them sharp knives they do not know how to control. The Scriptures are fully understood only from the Heart of the Church.

 

[Tomster]

I see you don’t deny the changes…

O.S.,

I will let Karl Adam, from his classic work “The Spirit of Catholicism”, explain this to you.

"If we would interpret correctly the Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church, that is to say if we would understand it as the Church would have it understood, we should grasp its history and its connection with the rest of her teaching. For no Catholic doctrine is an isolated mass of thought, but has on the contrary its proper place and meaning in the whole unitary system and cannot be fully appreciated except through the whole system.

To begin with, it is certain that the declaration that there is no salvation outside the Church is not aimed at individual non-Catholics, at any persons as persons, but at non-Catholic churches and communions, in so far as they are non-Catholic communions. Its purpose is to formulate positively the truth that there is but one Body of Christ and therefore but one Church which possesses and imparts the grace of Christ in its fullness. Stated otherwise the declaration would run: Every separated church which sets itself up against the original Church of Christ stands outside the communion of Christ’s grace. It cannot be a mediator of salvation. So far as it is a separate and antagonistic church, it is essentially unfruitful as regards the supernatural life. So that the spiritual unfruitfulness which is predicated in the doctrine is not to be affirmed of the individual non-Catholic, but primarily of non-Catholic communions as such. By that which constitutes their separateness and differentiates them in faith and worship from the Catholic Church, they are able to awaken no supernatural life. Therefore, in so far as they are un-Catholic and anti-Catholic, that is to say in regard to their distinct character, they are not able to claim the honorable title of a “mother” church.

In saying so much we have already indicated the second dogmatic qualification which the proposition receives within the system of Catholic doctrine. For non-Catholic communions are not merely non-Catholic and anti-Catholic. When they set themselves up against the original Church of Christ, they took over and maintained a considerable amount of the Catholic inheritance, and also a certain Catholic means of grace, in particular the sacrament of Baptism. They are therefore, if we regard them as a whole, not mere antithesis and negation, but also to a large extent thesis and affirmation of the ancient treasure of truth and grace that has come down to us from Christ and the apostles. Their churches are built not only of their own un-Catholic materials, but also of Catholic stuff fro the original store of salvation. And insofar as they are genuinely Catholic in their faith and worship, it can and will and must happen that there should be, even outside the VISIBLE [emph. mine] Church, a real growth and progress in union with Christ. So is the promise of Jesus fullfilled: “And other sheep I have that are not of this fold” (John 10:16). Wherever the gospel of Jesus is faithfully preached, and wherever Baptism is conferred with faith in His Holy Name, there His grace can operate .

 

[guanophore]

So you just believe what the early fathers say that you agee with…

To an extent this is true. The Early fathers had plenty to say, not all of it representative of orthodox teaching. To the extent that their writings are consitent with what the Apostles taught, then they were writing accurately about the faith, and can be included in the unbroken line of teaching Apostolic Truth. To the extent that their writing may fall short of the Teachings, they are not accurately representing. The same standards are applied to Theologians today.

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.

This is another slanderous accusation against the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. All of these communities understood that they are part of the One Church, and all of them recognize that they were completely dependent upon Christ, the Head of the Church, who represented HImself through the Apostles, and from which Apostles were ordained Bishops. You are projecting a secular notion of power and control (“rule”) onto history. The unity results from submission to the Authority of Christ, and those He has sent, and to the doctrine taught by Jesus and the Apostles. Your effort to represent these communities in rebellion against sacred tradition in order to justify your own rebellion is pitiful.

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

No, you are misrepresenting the facts in order to justify the false statements you have made. Not all the NT books claim they are inspired, and we are not even sure who all the authors were. We have some knowledge that comes to us through the writings, but as much we have through sacred tradition. And to this day, there is no agreement about the book of Hebrews, which does not claim to be inspired either!

 

[Lampo]

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.

And you think God set it up this way? I don’t think you give God enough credit. As Fr. Henry Graham says in his book, “Where we Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church”, your sola scriptura theology ends logically in the blasphemous conclusion that our Blessed Lord failed to provide an adequate means of conveying to men in every age the knowledge of His truth.

 

[Tomster]

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?

The doctrine has never been changed. What has changed, and continues to change, are the protestant conceptions of grace, church, salvation and redemption.

Could you please tell us what you think the difference is between redemption and salvation.

 

[mercygate]

O.S.,

I will let Karl Adam, from his classic work “The Spirit of Catholicism”, explain this to you.

"If we would interpret correctly the Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church, that is to say if we would understand it as the Church would have it understood, we should grasp its history and its connection with the rest of her teaching. For no Catholic doctrine is an isolated mass of thought, but has on the contrary its proper place and meaning in the whole unitary system and cannot be fully appreciated except through the whole system.

To begin with, it is certain that the declaration that there is no salvation outside the Church is not aimed at individual non-Catholics, at any persons as persons, but at non-Catholic churches and communions, in so far as they are non-Catholic communions. Its purpose is to formulate positively the truth that there is but one Body of Christ and therefore but one Church which possesses and imparts the grace of Christ in its fullness. Stated otherwise the declaration would run: Every separated church which sets itself up against the original Church of Christ stands outside the communion of Christ’s grace. It cannot be a mediator of salvation. So far as it is a separate and antagonistic church, it is essentially unfruitful as regards the supernatural life. So that the spiritual unfruitfulness which is predicated in the doctrine is not to be affirmed of the individual non-Catholic, but primarily of non-Catholic communions as such. By that which constitutes their separateness and differentiates them in faith and worship from the Catholic Church, they are able to awaken no supernatural life. Therefore, in so far as they are un-Catholic and anti-Catholic, that is to say in regard to their distinct character, they are not able to claim the honorable title of a “mother” church.

In saying so much we have already indicated the second dogmatic qualification which the proposition receives within the system of Catholic doctrine. For non-Catholic communions are not merely non-Catholic and anti-Catholic. When they set themselves up against the original Church of Christ, they took over and maintained a considerable amount of the Catholic inheritance, and also a certain Catholic means of grace, in particular the sacrament of Baptism. They are therefore, if we regard them as a whole, not mere antithesis and negation, but also to a large extent thesis and affirmation of the ancient treasure of truth and grace that has come down to us from Christ and the apostles. Their churches are built not only of their own un-Catholic materials, but also of Catholic stuff fro the original store of salvation. And insofar as they are genuinely Catholic in their faith and worship, it can and will and must happen that there should be, even outside the VISIBLE [emph. mine] Church, a real growth and progress in union with Christ. So is the promise of Jesus fullfilled: “And other sheep I have that are not of this fold” (John 10:16). Wherever the gospel of Jesus is faithfully preached, and wherever Baptism is conferred with faith in His Holy Name, there His grace can operate .

Thanks for this! I have never seen such a clear, concise handling of E.E.N.S.

 

[Tomster]

Luther couldn’t canonize anything.

Well, you got that one right!

 

[Tomster]

Thanks for this! I have never seen such a clear, concise handling of E.E.N.S.

You are welcome.

 

[pete_29]

Are you able to refute any of this?

I never said I could. I was just pointing out that your expertise on Church history is suspect at least in my opinion.Of course my opinion and a couple of bucks willget you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

 

[guanophore]

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?

The Teachings of Jesus can only be accessed by faith. The Church holds the Divine Deposit of Faith in the scriptures and in the Sacred Tradition. A person such as yourself, and OS here are hardened in your heart toward the Catholic Church. You can study and read all you want, but you will not be able to allow the light of Christ’s teaching to shine through, because if it did, it would topple the tower of bigotry that you have built toward the Catholic Church.

It might also topple the ministry to which you both seem to believe you are called -that of tearing what you perceive to be tares out of the field of God.

"… 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; 19 they have become callous…"Eph 4:18-19

I am not saying that your callousness and hardness of heart is all of your own making. I studied the Chick Tracts too, and I lived in severely anti Catholic Baptist communities and Assembly of God. I realize that this bigotry is much bigger than just you and OS.

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?

I was thinking of the early practices, and how the uninitiated were not permitted during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Catechumens were included for the first half of the Mass (many parishes are getting back to this now with RCIA) and were dismissed prior to the “mysteries”. Only those who had completed initiation rites were permitted to participate in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood. This was done to ensure reverence and respect, and that all those who participated were believers. Faith is necessary to enter into the Holy Mysteries. Jesus Church is a Holy Mystery which ja4 has constantly denied and maligned. He does not believe that there even is such an entity as the One, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church. His lack of faith prevents him from understanding and accessing this mystery, which can only be apprehended by faith.

 

[guanophore]

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

This is another slanderous accusation against Catholicism, which nowhere requires that leaders have any type of specific marital status. Promulgation of these types of lies about Catholicism is what indicates that you are not here on CAF to learn, but to malign, misrepresent, and tear at the Body of Christ. It is also off topic, which appears to be one of your favorite tactics.

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

The Catechism is packed with references to all kinds of material. But the Church does not separate, as you do, the Divine Dep
osit of Faith. She recognizes that God’s revelation has come to us through Sacred Writing, and Sacred Tradition, and that both must be taken together to receive the whole message of God. You have stated that you categorically reject whatever you do not see in your Bible, therefore, you have already made up your mind you are not interested in the whole Deposit of Faith.

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

It is a violation of the forum rules to deliberately derail a thread. Start another thread on this topic, if you need an outlet for your calumny.

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.

Is it the epitome of audacity that an anti-catholic would come to a Catholic forum and attempt to teach the Catholics there what they believe about the difference between doctrine and disciplines? all disciplines are based in scripture. It doesn’t make them doctrines.

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

Did you get tired of the topic, ja4, or feel like you were losing your case? It is a pretty hot thread. This is the third post I have found from you this morning trying to change the subject.

 

[Tomster]

Old Scholar,

www.newadvent.org/cathen/10663a.htm

AND

www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/p12MYSTI.HTM

These two links should help you to better understand the Catholic position on most of your questions/statements.

The second link is a great example of Magisterial teaching, Catholic Tradition. Lots of Biblical references and Patristics.

Hope this helps you. :tiphat:

Tomster

 

[guanophore]

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.

These kinds of posts repesent an amazing arrogance and venom. It appears that OS does not realize that many of the canonized scriptures are unclear in their authorship. It also seems to be quite cheeky for an anti-Catholic to come to a Catholic forum to tell Catholics what they can, and cannot do about their faith. It demonstrates that OS is not hear to ask questions about Catholicism, but to malign Catholic beliefs, and apparently to correct those he considers erroneous.

You are in my prayers, OS.

 

[wanner47]

Reposting this because it may have gotten lost in the shuffle, and I’m really interested on Old Scholar’s answer…

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?

 

[Pwrlftr]

**These kinds of posts repesent an amazing arrogance and venom. ** It appears that OS does not realize that many of the canonized scriptures are unclear in their authorship. It also seems to be quite cheeky for an anti-Catholic to come to a Catholic forum to tell Catholics what they can, and cannot do about their faith. It demonstrates that OS is not hear to ask questions about Catholicism, but to malign Catholic beliefs, and apparently to correct those he considers erroneous.

You are in my prayers, OS.

Have you bothered to correct your Catholic brothers and sisters for the “venom” they post?

 

[mercygate]

This is another slanderous accusation against Catholicism, which nowhere requires that leaders have any type of specific marital status. Promulgation of these types of lies about Catholicism is what indicates that you are not here on CAF to learn, but to malign, misrepresent, and tear at the Body of Christ. It is also off topic, which appears to be one of your favorite tactics.

Here ya go, guano. Take 5. The Latin Church does, in general, expect “leaders” – her clergy – to be celibate. That does not make O.S. correct in labeling the practice “unscriptural”. But celibacy is definitely the norm for us.

 

[Lampo]

Thought I would post this for the lurkers that might be new members and have not yet read this:

During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.

As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.

Below we give patristic quotations from each of the deuterocanonical books. Notice how the Fathers quoted these books along with the protocanonicals. The deuterocanonicals are those books of the Old Testament that were included in the Bible even though there had been some discussion about whether they should be.

Also included are the earliest official lists of the canon. For the sake of brevity these are not given in full. When the lists of the canon cited here are given in full, they include all the books and only the books found in the modern Catholic Bible.

When examining the question of what books were originally included in the Old Testament canon, it is important to note that some of the books of the Bible have been known by more than one name. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings—that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings. The history and use of these designations is explained more fully in Scripture reference works.

The Didache

“You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]” (Didache 4:5 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas

“Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Is. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]” (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).

Clement of Rome

“By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, “What have you done?” or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]” (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).

…There are several more quotes from the Early Church Fathers referencing the Deuterocanonical Books. You can find them here:
catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp

 

[MrS]

Thanks for clearing this up again Lampo:

*During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.

As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.*

 

[Church_Militant]

How can you be a good Catholic and not believe what your early church fathers had to say about their beliefs? Do you just deny the words you don’t like or do you deny all their writings?

No… I deny that they mean what you interpret them to mean. Based on other writings of theirs, they believed the New Testament to teach the things that we Catholics do today. Polycarp’s infant baptism is glaringly obvious as is Ignatius of Antioch’s Eucharistic Real Presence and his attitude towards those who reject it. (“They incur death in their disputes”!)

So, even as Jimmy Akin’s article points out, they may have believed in the material sufficiency of scripture, but their writings show that they came away from it with very Catholic doctrines, which tells you that in citing them you have essentially shot yourself in the foot.

As a good Catholic, I have no problem with that at all. I would have problems with those who might misrepresent and (intentionally) misinterpret their writings to make them appear to support something that they do not.

 

[ErikaA]

I think it’s kinda pointless to debate with Old Scholar so I’m just going to answer the question succintly.

Sola Scriptura is a joke, a pile of dung as Luther might say. If you read the Bible and try to comprehend it, you’re not relying on Scripture alone to do so. You’re using reason.