Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[Lampo]

**

Actually most all of the versions of the Bible contain the same message. **

Like: infant baptism, Immaculate Conception, OSAS, SS, the Rapture, Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, the Assumption, the “brothers” of Jesus, call no man father, altar calls, etc., etc., etc.

See why we need a teacher of Sacred Scripture?

 

[Aramis]

**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.

Sober and Does not Drink are not synonyms.

Sober has many meanings, and includes “doesn’t drink to excess”, as well as “of serious mind”…

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.*

Sorry MrS but those books were not considered canonical from the beginning. They were declared deuterocanonical at one time, left out at another time and it bounced back and forth but were never declared canonical until Trent.

 

[davidv]

Sorry MrS but those books were not considered canonical from the beginning. They were declared deuterocanonical at one time, left out at another time and it bounced back and forth but were never declared canonical until Trent.

This is plainly and simply a lie. The declaration on the canon of scripture at Trent is simply the formal statement of what was held as the truth long before then.

 

[Lampo]

**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.

Here’s more of that passage: 1 Tim. 3:4-5 "He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?

For one, if “the husband of one wife” really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic “keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way” would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.

Do you believe this too?

 

[mercygate]

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.

The Catholic and Orthodox view of “husband of one wife” passage is that before the standard of the Lord’s counsel to celibacy was adopted as the norm, a bishop had to have been the husband of only one wife. If she should die, he could not remarry. After all, the man who wrote that was a bishop and he was single. Timothy was a bishop; he was single.

Men who are ordained to the episcopate in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have demonstrated themselves to exhibit the other character points on that list. Orthodox bishops, of course, are also celibate.

 

[Lampo]

**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.

The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on bishops which he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry!

catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

**Can you list any writings of: Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenæus, Clement, Justin Martyr, Mathetes, Barnabas or Theophilus that support the following:

Immaculate conception
perpetual virginity of Mary
assumption of Mary
purgatory
the papacy
indulgences
baptism without fasting
salvation only within the church
Mary as Co-Mediatrix

If they didn’t support these things, then they came along much later. For thousands of years the Roman Catholic Church has claimed to possess all the truth, so how could anything be changed?**

 

[CentralFLJames]

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?

You act as if Christians should embrace distrust and rebellion against Church Authority as a virtue. If this is what you are saying can you show us in scripture where this is a gospel teaching and not your own private teaching? It may be helpful to your condition to mediate on the imagery and character of “sheep” that Jesus spoke of often to recalibrate your outlook.

BTW we Catholics do have a rule or guide - its called mother Church; along with her teachings and traditions and the mystical faith of the Catholic Community. What is your rule of faith - a personal conscience that is not centered on truth?

You act as if God is not part of The Church’s faith. Each of us Catholics is an integral part of the mystical Body of Christ through our baptism and communion with His Church. Therefore in addition to a teaching relationship there is a very real spiritual connection with mother Church too. We Catholics simply “know” from our inner being when we are in communion with Teaching and when we are outside of it or not feeling right (albeit some “in name” only Catholics may need to be hit over the head by other members from time to time).

Also we Catholics implicitly engage our faith from a posture of trust and love - not from a defensive and timid posture of rebellion and mistrust. The latter are not things born of God nor indicative of a calm human constitution.

Sounds like you might have need to go in for a 100,000 mile spiritual tune up. I’d recommend some Catholic reading, conversion, confession, penance, fasting, mass, and the Eucharist! That should cure what ails ya!

James

 

[Yerusalyim]

Catholics reject Sola Scriptura because it’s NOT BIBLICAL.

 

[Lampo]

**Can you list any writings of: Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenæus, Clement, Justin Martyr, Mathetes, Barnabas or Theophilus that support the following:

Immaculate conception
perpetual virginity of Mary
assumption of Mary
purgatory
the papacy
indulgences
baptism without fasting
salvation only within the church
Mary as Co-Mediatrix

If they didn’t support these things, then they came along much later. For thousands of years the Roman Catholic Church has claimed to possess all the truth, so how could anything be changed?**

Can you prove they don’t?

 

[Old_Scholar]

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?

So still no affirmation or denial…

 

[Lampo]

So still no affirmation or denial…

It’s absolutely a denial that the Church did not want anyone to read the Bible.

Care to answer my question in the post?

 

[mercygate]

Can you list any writings of: Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenæus, Clement, Justin Martyr, Mathetes, Barnabas or Theophilus that support the following:

Immaculate conception
perpetual virginity of Mary
assumption of Mary
purgatory
the papacy
indulgences
baptism without fasting
salvation only within the church
Mary as Co-Mediatrix

If they didn’t support these things, then they came along much later. For thousands of years the Roman Catholic Church has claimed to possess all the truth, so how could anything be changed?

Baptism without fasting?

 

[Old_Scholar]

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

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

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

**But no one has shown it to be false. You are stating something that is not true. Where is the proof it is not correct. I gave the references of when and who made the statements I listed and there has been no refutation. Simply people saying all that has been disproven or it isn’t right.

That’s poor debating tactics. If you can’t prove it, then don’t say it.**

 

[Kay_Cee]

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.

Please explain what exactly is the criterea to be “God-breathed.” How do I test a writing to determine if it is, in fact, “God-breathed”?

Since you are sola scriptura, please limit your answer to the Bible alone. That is, please show me where the Bible lists this criterea.

Oh, and while you’re at it, would you please show me where each of the 66 books in your Bible claims inspiration. Chapter and verse, please.

One last thing: since the Koran claims inspiration, should I believe it is the word of God too?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Can you prove they don’t?

I’m not the one that said they supported the Catholic doctrines and dogmas I listed. The burden of proof is not on me but the one who made the claim.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Baptism without fasting?

Does that mean you are not familiar with the early church’s method of baptism?

 

[davidv]

I’m not the one that said they supported the Catholic doctrines and dogmas I listed. The burden of proof is not on me but the one who made the claim.

That is because that is not the subject of this thread, SS is. You have asked for and received a huge volume of responses, anwering your request.

 

[Lampo]

I’m not the one that said they supported the Catholic doctrines and dogmas I listed. The burden of proof is not on me but the one who made the claim.

Okay. If someone comes up to you and asks can you prove the ECF did not support (your list), could you do so?