Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[justasking4]

Schabel;3264759]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
i have given this much thought.

Schabel
Apparently not.

Quote:justasking4

What i’m against is your church that goes against the clear teaching of Scripture in regards to the qualifications for leadership. I’m aware of the argument that is used that Jesus was single.

Schabel
Well, if you’re aware of it, you should also realize that this (having to be married) is not a requirement for leadership, as you may be saying, and as Old Scholar is certainly saying.

I base my case on I Timothy 3:4-7

Unless you believe that Jesus Himself was “unqualified” to be a leader. Paul, too, even though he was chosen by Christ to be a leader.

Not so. What your church has done to married catholic men is disqualify them based on their martial status.

Quote:justasking4
The problem is that He never advocates leadership based on celibacy. In fact He chose Peter who was married to be a leader.

Schabel
And He chose Paul, who was UNmarried, to be a leader. So why would you be advocating that being married was a requirement?

Where does it say that Paul was unmarried? There are opposing views on this and uncertainty. I advocate being married based on I Timothy 3:4-7.

 

[justasking4]

cascherman;3264882]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Look the context for these passages. These passages don’t deal with leadership directly. A person can be unmarried and serve. I don’t disagree with that. My issue is that the catholic church has disqualified married catholic men from leadership i.e. priests, bishops or popes. They are disqualified because they are married.

cascherman
Right, so wouldn’t it make sense that the people responsible for teaching be solely devoted to God?

Its not about what makes sense but what do the Scriptures teach about this issue that is at stake.

Many people act like celibacy in the Catholic Church is forced onto people… Like, SURPRISE, you made it through seminary now you have to ditch your wife.

Its about what disqualifies a married catholic man. He is disqualified for the mere fact he is married.

Sometimes I think most people get up in arms about celibacy with priests because it is that little extra devotion and discipline that others resent them for because they wouldn’t want to make it themselves. A married non-catholic religious leader might take that as, “The Catholic Church says no religious leader is good enough unless they are celibate.”

I say, no one is forcing you into the priesthood and each of those men make that decision on their own with great prayer and introspection, so why judge their decision?

i’m sure men who pursue the priesthood do as you say here. The issue is that your church disqualifies married men because they are married. This is not Christ’ plan for His church.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Secondly being married to a wife while serving is a great help. Having someone who you can share the burdens of ministry and having a wife that can encourage her husband is something that a single person may lack. Have you ever talked to a protestant minister who is married about this?

cascherman
I’d prefer a leader who lies his burdens down at Christ’s feet, not his wife’s.

A protestant can do both. That’s why Christ designed the church to not only depend on Him but also on each other. We need the encouragement of others at times. Would you agree?

 

[Canto]

From the 1582 Douay Rheims Bible (some names in Latin form)

The notable men of both Testaments, that lived continently from wives. John, and of Timothy, Titus, Eodius, Clement, that they lived and died in chastity, reckoning up of the Old Testament diverse notable personages that did the same, as Elias, Jesus Nave (otherwise called Josue), Melchisedec, Elisaeus, Jeremie, John Baptist. No man is ignorant that all the notable Fathers of the Greek and Latin Church lived chaste: Athanasias, Basil, Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Hilary (who entered into holy Orders after his wife’s death) Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Leo, Gregory the Great.

If you don’t want to be celibate then don’t become a Priest. No one forces a Catholic to become a priest. The work-family balance is tough form most familes. Catholic Priests work their butts off day and night and if they were married would not be able to fully devote themselves to their family. It would be unfair to their wife and children. When Christ told his aposltes about marriage, they new if they were going to spread his word it would not be for them.

Paul said to Titus that a bishop should be "hospitable, kind, sober, just, holy, continent, having a firm grasp of the unchanging message of the doctrine, so that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and reprove those who gainsay it. - Titus 1:8-9

The word continent means being able to excise control and also

“moderate or celibate: restrained, especially abstaining from sexual activity” - Encarta World English Dictionary

As for any aledged plurality in churches. McDonalds is based in America yet has offshoots in Australia, England, Netherlands etc. It’s still McDonalds, still selling the same Big Macs as always.

The Church offshoots at Corinth, Thessalonika, Galatia etc it’s still the same Church, still teaching the same things - still Catholic.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Are you saying that if there is a married catholic man in your parish he could ask to become a priest and he could?

He could become a deacon and then later if his wife passed away he could become a priest .

James

 

[guanophore]

** What proof do you have that all these churches recognized that they were part of one church? **

The fathers testify that there was only one, universal church over the whole world. This happened within a couple decades of the writing of these letters. There is one Christ, One Baptism, One Faith, 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?**

They were in different cities. Yes, one suffices, they were all included in the book of Revelation together.

** 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.**

You have a secularized and power based concept of leadership. Jesus concept was that of service, not “rulership”. The sucessor of Peter has always been, as he was, the servant of the servants of God. Christ has always been, and always will be, the Head of the Church. Unity is found in adherance to right doctrine, embraced by all the bishops.

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

All these communities were part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Ignatius writes to the Ephesians on his way to martyrdom in Rome.

Chapter 3. Exhortations to unity.
I do not issue orders to you, as if I were some great person. For though I am bound for the name [of Christ], I am not yet perfect in Jesus Christ. For now I begin to be a disciple, and I speak to you as fellow-disciples with me. For it was needful for me to have been stirred up by you in faith, exhortation, patience, and long-suffering. But inasmuch as love suffers me not to be silent in regard to you, I have therefore taken upon me first to exhort you that you would all run together in accordance with the will of God. For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the [manifested] will of the Father;** as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds [of the earth], are so by the will of Jesus Christ.**
Chapter 4. The same continued.
Wherefore it is fitting that you should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also you do. For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp. Therefore in your concord and harmonious love, Jesus Christ is sung. And do ye, man by man, become a choir, that being harmonious in love, and taking up the song of God in unison, you may with one voice sing to the Father through Jesus Christ, so that He may both hear you, and perceive by your works that you are indeed the members of His Son. It is profitable, therefore, that you should live in an unblameable unity, that thus you may always enjoy communion with God.

Chapter 5. The praise of unity.
For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop —I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature—how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity! Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses Matthew 18:19 such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, “God resists the proud.” Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.

The bishops were not isolated from one another, but all in unity together, over the whole world. One.

 

[justasking4]

Canto;3264938]From the 1582 Douay Rheims Bible (some names in Latin form)

The notable men of both Testaments, that lived continently from wives. John, and of Timothy, Titus, Eodius, Clement, that they lived and died in chastity, reckoning up of the Old Testament diverse notable personages that did the same, as Elias, Jesus Nave (otherwise called Josue), Melchisedec, Elisaeus, Jeremie, John Baptist. No man is ignorant that all the notable Fathers of the Greek and Latin Church lived chaste: Athanasias, Basil, Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Hilary (who entered into holy Orders after his wife’s death) Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Leo, Gregory the Great.

If you don’t want to be celibate then don’t become a Priest. No one forces a Catholic to become a priest. The work-family balance is tough form most familes. Catholic Priests work their butts off day and night and if they were married would not be able to fully devote themselves to their family. It would be unfair to their wife and children. When Christ told his aposltes about marriage, they new if they were going to spread his word it would not be for them.

Paul said to Titus that a bishop should be "hospitable, kind, sober, just, holy, continent, having a firm grasp of the unchanging message of the doctrine, so that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and reprove those who gainsay it. - Titus 1:8-9

The word continent means being able to excise control and also

“moderate or celibate: restrained, especially abstaining from sexual activity” - Encarta World English Dictionary

As for any aledged plurality in churches. McDonalds is based in America yet has offshoots in Australia, England, Netherlands etc. It’s still McDonalds, still selling the same Big Macs as always.

Since i believe in Sola Scriptura and that the NT does teach that leaders can be married.
I Timothy 3:4-7 is a case in point. I can be consistent with the scriptures on this.
i don’t see how a catholic can be consistent with the scriptures on this since I Timothy 3:4-7 is clear about the qualifications for leadership. Jesus nor any of His disciples ever made celibacy a requirement for leadership.

The Church offshoots at Corinth, Thessalonika, Galatia etc it’s still the same Church, still teaching the same things - still Catholic./

The church of the NT is not the same as the catholic church. The church of the NT did have married leadership, did not believe in the marian doctrines nor praying to saints. These are just some of the differences. Would you not agree?

 

[guanophore]

**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?**

This is an absurd premise. We don’t see in any of these writings the word Trinity, anything about the hypostatic union, worship on Sunday, or a table of contents of the Bible, either, but we all accept those.

 

[CentralFLJames]

It is infortunate however, that the Catholic Church is not the church it was when it started.

Says who? Would you have us all go back to worshiping in candlelit caves and catacombs and having the regular “old school” style of roman and Jewish persecution to better learn our faith? Persist with thinking like this and I am going to start calling you a Flagellant for using torturous assertions.

My advise don’t let a personal proclivity for sentimentality lead you to the non-sequitur that the passing of seasons renders the new leaves deficient. It’s the same root for God sakes. Or perhaps you are you suggesting here that you are an Old Traditionalist here rather than a Old Scholar? Well now, maybe the man is coming around to Catholicism after all.

 

[wanner47]

Reposting…

Originally Posted by Old Scholar

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

Why not? What proof do you have that I’m not?

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.

So it doesn’t matter if the words are different as long as the message is the same? What if two people read the exact same passage, and each come away with a different message? How do you know who is right?

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.

And how do you know what is an “untruth”? Who has the authority to make such decisions? What if two churches vehemently disagree on which Bibles contain “untruths” and which do not? Who decides which Bible is correct?

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.

I’ve seen Protestants “prove” from the Bible, with references, that OSAS is a correct doctrine. I’ve seen Catholics “prove” from the Bible, with references, that OSAS is not correct. The same for issues such as divorce, infant baptism, etc. Who decides which church is right? They can’t both be right, can they?

---

 

[Stephen_C]

**I certainly don’t hate Catholics. They have been taught what they believe all their life…“train a child while he grows up…”

It is infortunate however, that the Catholic Church is not the church it was when it started. All I have been doing is quoting Scripture and quoting the early church fathers. It is the change through the years that I don’t like. After all I am a member of the Catholic Church but not the Roman Catholic Church.**

With that I say again…

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen said it best
**“There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing.” **

All you have posted so far is the same ole canned anti-Catholic dribble. Pulled from anti-Catholic sources.

Please take the time to read what Catholic’s really believe. (from Catholic sources) And what the Catholic Church teaches. Then if you disagree with that…then ask questions. Don’t come here and try to tell us what we believe or try to rewrite history to fit you anti-Catholic mindset. Then try to sell it to us a truth…WE KNOW BETTER.

 

[CentralFLJames]

So we agree then that a married catholic man that wants to be a priest for example cannot be a priest?

With the way some of you apply logic to scripture we should presume that no one can be a priest or a bishop unless he was a Judaic apostate of of Jewish descent who had children, at least one wife, was circumcised, had no formal education and could speak Aramaic but think like a Greek. All you are making a case for here is the absurdity of the practical sufficiency of Sola Scriptura sans tradition.

James

 

[justasking4]

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

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3265066]
Originally Posted by justasking4
So we agree then that a married catholic man that wants to be a priest for example cannot be a priest?

CentralFLJames
With the way some of you apply logic to scripture we should presume that no one can be a priest or a bishop unless he was a Judaic apostate of of Jewish descent who had children, at least one wife, was circumcised, had no formal education and could speak Aramaic but think like a Greek.

Where in I Timothy 3:4-7 does Paul make a requirement for leadership teaching that you must be “a Judaic apostate of of Jewish descent who had children, at least one wife, was circumcised, had no formal education and could speak Aramaic but think like a Greek”?

All you are making a case for here is the absurdity of the practical sufficiency of Sola Scriptura sans tradition.

Actually not. The Scriptures are quite clear and practical on this issue. It is your “tradition” that is nullifying the Word of God.

James

 

[Church_Militant]

**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?**

I’ll gladly deal with those right after you justify your rejection of the Eucharistic Real Presence & Infant baptism in Ignatius’ and Polycarp’s writings. I showed you the facts proving that you do not believe what they say they do and you pull a bait & switch to different issues.

Furthermore, If (as Catholics justifiably believe), Sola Scriptura as you believe it is unscriptural, then we actually do not have to have a scriptural basis for any of the issues you mention, although every one does have some such basis.

Don’t dodge OS…please justify why you disagree with the Word of God, the ECF, and the Catholic Church when they all agree with the two doctrines that I offered.

I don’t think you can.

 

[Church_Militant]

Baptism without fasting?

See the Didache. Chapter 7.

 

[justasking4]

**[
Originally Posted by justasking4
How about celibate leadership? In the NT men were not forbidden from being leaders in the church by the mere fact they were married.

Church Militant
Priestly celibacy is unBiblical. NOT!](Apocalypsis: Priestly celibacy is unBiblical. NOT!)**

Where in the Scriptures does it teach a man **must be celibate **to be a leader? Where in the context where church leadership is spoken of that a man must be celibate and a married man is disqualified from leadership because he is married?

 

[Church_Militant]

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

That would be one of the methods of Baptism.

Oh, and does your particular faith community obey that? In over 30 years in n-Cs communities, I never saw it once. In fact I saw very little fasting…

 

[Church_Militant]

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

 

[Church_Militant]

Ah. Didache? Actually, when adults are baptized, they are encouraged to fast, health permitting. When I was confirmed, I fasted from Good Friday evening until the Mass of the Easter Vigil on Saturday night. But that would be a discipline, not a doctrine. So you can scratch that off your list.

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :tiphat:

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Can you give me a couple of examples that are direct quotes from one of the books of the apocrypha?

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

Huh? Are you saying the catholic church does not teach that the apocryha that is in catholic Bibles is not inspired?