Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[Church_Militant]

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

No… We do not accept the apocrypha as inspired canon, but there are quite a few quotes of the Deuterocanonical books listed here.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

**On this we agree. If Tradition cannot be supported and backed up by Scripture, then Tradition is false.

Together they are powerful but only when Tradition is in harmony with Scripture as the ECF taught.**

 

[Church_Militant]

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

Priestly celibacy is unBiblical. NOT!

 

[juliamajor]

Too bad about the Deuterocanonical books being tossed. The are a terrific insight into the so called"years of silence" that other brethren claim. The intertestamental period was one of formation in jewish thought(resurrection of the dead- afterlife) that is only hinted at in the OT but comes to fruition at the time of Jesus The Deuteros are now gaining a healthy respect in Protestant quarters and only the most extreme discount them altogether.If you read commentaries or almost any sound book on scripture the septuagint and the Deuteros are always in the Bibliography and are used in Bible translations.

 

[Church_Militant]

I’m not making the claim about Sacred Tradition that many catholics do. I will defend the scriptures and sola scriptura. Can it be said that you don’t know exactly what these Sacred Traditions are either?

Ok… fair enough, however, have you actually read the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church including the footnotes? I have and continue to do so. Those notes show an eloquent expression of the Christian faith and do in fact document the Sacred Traditions that I mentioned.

Sola Scriptura can’t even get close to that.

Just because the writers of Scripture quote from various sources as you point out here does not mean those sources are inspired-inerrant. Paul also quotes from some secular poets but that does not mean they were inspired either.

Yet it does indeed show a case where Sacred Tradition is quoted into the scripture, right?

Where i have said i reject Sacred Tradition? I’m not aware of saying such a thing.

My assumption then and if wrong withdrawn.

I’m just trying to understand what it is, what they are, the origin of them and the dates and circumstances when they came about. I have yet to see a good discussion on these issues out here. Maybe i missed it.

Do you have a copy of the Catechism, if you don’t want to spend the money, it’s online.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

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.

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.

**It’s the same story. Even after proving that Catholics kept the Bible from comman man, everyone just skips right over it. And that’s after at least a half dozen posters claimed it was a lie. How dishonest.

I don’t mean to be demeaning. I am just firm in my convictions as you no doubt are.

The comment about you not believeing Scripture comes from you having stated that you believe certain things that are not found in Scripture and some of the RCC beliefs contradict Scripture so that to me means one disbelieves it if they believe the RCC.

I would be nice to communicate with a knowledgeable Catholic and not have to answer all those who don’t have any idea what they are talking about. Not being able to have an intelligent conversation begins to get to you sooner or later…

And just because you do not believe Protestant beliefs and speak against them, do I call you bigoted???**

 

[Old_Scholar]

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!

The 1611 Bible only contained the Apocrypha books with a special note saying they were not canon and were only listed for their reading value and historical content. They were clearly labeled as non-Scriptural.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

So you will finally admit that the church kept the Bible from the common man???

 

[Old_Scholar]

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 .

Is that a denial or a confirmation of the changes?

 

[Ignatius]

Old Scholar:

You must elaborate on this. Where did these books claim such? Where did they say they were inspired?

Ignatius:

Ha, what irony!
OldScholar, Where does the New Testament claim that it is inspired? Give us the verses where Jesus said the the Books of the New Testiment were Scripture!

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, I’m not dodging the question. Where does it claim that the New Testament books are inspiration?

The only time inspiration is mentioned is in 2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

Now I am sure that you know that at the time the New Testament had not been written. The author was therefore refering to the Old Testament. And the Old Testament used in the Greece and the middle East at the time was the Septuagent version. Now the Septuagent version contains the Deutero Canonical books. So, this verse supports the Deuteros as inspired.

That brings up another question. How do you know which writings should be in the New Testament? On what basis do you believe them to be inspired?

Grace and peace to you.

Your servant in Christ.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Scholar
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.

**What proof do you have that all these churches recognized that they were part of one church? If they were, why was it necessary for God to have to have messages sent to them all individually? Wouldn’t one have sufficed?

You know the ECF taught that the bishop was head of the church and the next one to Christ. They did not teach that another bishop was over all the churches. That fabrication came much later.

Revelation should prove that there were multiple churches, instead you attempt to refute it with no proof.**

 

[Lampo]

So you will finally admit that the church kept the Bible from the common man???

I assume you think this is true. If it is, why didn’t the Catholic Church destroy all of Scripture when she alone had them? It was absolutely, exclusively in her power to do with it as she pleased. What more simple than to order her priests and monks and Inquisitors to search out every copy and reduce it to ashes? Rome could have easily destroyed it if she had been so disposed during all those centuries that elapsed between its formation into one volume in 397 A.D.

After all, the Church claims the Bible is based on the Church, not the Church based solely on the Bible. In other words, the Church came first. The Catholic Church would exist without the Bible. Can you say the same for your ecclesial community or any other Prostestant community? Since this is the case, why do you think the Church did not destroy Sacred Scripture?

 

[davidv]

**It’s the same story. Even after proving that Catholics kept the Bible from comman man, everyone just skips right over it. **

Nothing of the sort has been proven. You have simple regurgitated anti-catholic drivel that has clearly been shown to be false.

And that’s after at least a half dozen posters claimed it was a lie. How dishonest.
I don’t mean to be demeaning. I am just firm in my convictions as you no doubt are.

Calling us dishonest is pretty “demeaning” in my book.

I would be nice to communicate with a knowledgeable Catholic and not have to answer all those who don’t have any idea what they are talking about. Not being able to have an intelligent conversation begins to get to you sooner or later…

Given all of the well thought out responses provided, this is also very “demeaning”. So, please stop it.

 

[Old_Scholar]

These kinds of posts represent 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.

**I appreciate your prayers. Thank you very much.

But I did come to this forum to learn. However if I simply asked you what you believed, how could I know that what you are telling me is what is really taught? By structuring my comments as I do I expect someone will show me why I am wrong and in so doing will expose me with proof of what is taught by the RCC. Not just what someone thinks.

So far I have found that most everyone on this forum believes the church in all matters but doesn’t question what the church says at all and in the matter of Tradition, it seems there is no written Tradition to follow, so it must be whatever is in the mind of the one who tells you what to believe. Without some rule or guide, how do you know what to believe. Or are you naive enough to simply believe what you are told even if you don’t feel it is right?

When you were told for hundreds of years, lo thousands, that it was a sin to eat meat on Fridays, and then another pope comes along and says it is OK to eat meat on Fridays—how does that make you feel? What is the standard?

Another example is Limbo. When the pope ended the doctrine of Limbo, what about all the souls of those babies that died without being baptized until the doctrine was changed? Are they still destined for hell?

These type things are what I came here to learn, but all I get is the run around and get called a liar and a bigot.**

 

[Lampo]

… there is no written Tradition…

Actually, there is - the Holy Bible.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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

**It did—thanks!

First, I haven’t seen any Scripture of yours to refute.
And no I won’t believe you are “inspired by God.”

Actually most all of the versions of the Bible contain the same message. Some make it a little easier to read and understand but I draw the line at those that have been re-worded in order to fit a certain thought or doctrine.

I agree, one church should not tell another to ‘not read’ their Bible but there is nothing wrong about pointing out un-truths if the Bible has them.

It would seem proper that if you disagree and think someone has listed Scripture or a meaning of Scripture that you don’t agree with, you should be able to refute it with references rather than just saying it is wrong. Anyone can say it is wrong. To be honest, one should be able to ‘prove’ why it is wrong. **

 

[Lampo]

**

When you were told for hundreds of years, lo thousands, that it was a sin to eat meat on Fridays, and then another pope comes along and says it is OK to eat meat on Fridays—how does that make you feel? What is the standard?

Another example is Limbo. When the pope ended the doctrine of Limbo, what about all the souls of those babies that died without being baptized until the doctrine was changed? Are they still destined for hell?

These type things are what I came here to learn, but all I get is the run around and get called a liar and a bigot.**

I am fine with it as are most Catholics that understand the difference between Discipline and Dogma.

 

[mercygate]

So you will finally admit that the church kept the Bible from the common man???

Not in the sense you mean it. No.

The Bible was read in Church; people knew the stories. So Scripture was not unavailable to the common man. In the period you speak of, few people could read, and most of them were priests. The Scriptures were unavailable to the common man in book form because a copy of the Bible would cost the equivalent of about $300 K in today’s U.S. dollars, and the task of copying it out by hand took a scribe not less than 8 months.

In issuing pastoral advisories against the indiscriminate dissemintation of a book that takes both perspicuity and education to understand, the Church was acting according to the best pastoral principles.

In our day, when everybody can have a dozen copies of the Bible in different translations, the situation is quite different. The Catholic Church still permits only certain translations to be read in the litiurgy and discourages reading questionable translations, although Catholic scholars collaborated on the RSV to produce the best ecumenical translation in print.

Remember: the Catholic Church put an English New Testament into the hands of English speaking Christians in 1582 – nearly 30 years before the KJV appeared in print.

To say that the Catholic Church kept the Bible away from the common man states the case in an extremely negative light that completely ignores the historical facts, misrepresents the reasons and motives for the Church’s caution in exercising her custody of her most precious family heirloom, and denies the fact that the Catholic Church has been both conscientious and generous in providing translations of Scripture and making them avaialable to “the common man.”

In fact, every Catholic Bible contains a notice in the front indicating the special graces that are conferred upon Catholics who dedicate at least half an hour to the reading of Scripture.

 

[Aramis]

It is important for Roman Catholics to argue against *Sola Scriptura *because if they believe it, they can’t claim that the New Testament writers viewed certain *non-scriptural sources *as authoritative oral tradition. They have no precedent for the belief we should give the same consideration to church tradition if it can’t be proved by Scripture. Then they claim that scripture is not sufficient in itself but scripture tells us otherwise.

The simplest answer is that church tradition predates the Catholic Bible by 300+ years, and the Protestant one by 1500+…

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

**Actually I believe Scripture specifically states that a bishop must be the husband of one wife. That eliminates single men.

1 Tim 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;**

Now I don’t see how you can interpret this any other way. In addition to being married, a bishop must be sober and that means does not drink and must be of good behaviour, which means he can’t be a scoundrel.