Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[Church_Militant]

Is it not true that even though the catholic church today believes those things in the list these men did not?

Don’t really know for sure do we, since they didn’t write about them.

However, I have a theory about that too.
Reasons Why I Believe in The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Assumption

 

[Church_Militant]

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?Where does it teach that such a discipline did not come into being in the earliest days of the church?

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3265516]

Originally Posted by justasking4
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 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?

Church Militant
There’s your whole problem, Ja4… you believe an unscriptural doctrine and then base subsequent errors in doctrine upon that and think they too are valid.
Look closely at I Timothy 3:4-7. These are the qualifications for church leadership. As you can see Paul does not disqualify married men but teaches that such men who are in fact married are excellent candiates. There is no passage that i know of where church leadership is addresses specifically that celibate men are to be leaders. Do you know of any?

The facts of history prove that the Catholic Church did not

have a married leadership, and especially so as the church grew.
Was not Peter married. Does not Paul referred to other apostles being married–See for example I Corinthians 9:5 which says–
Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even **as the rest of the apostles **and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

The Marian beliefs

that you speak of developed based upon tradition handed down from the apostles, and the intercession of saints was also believed by the early church, and is indeed taught in scripture.

What writer of the NT ever taught that she was without sin, assumed into heaven or should be prayed to?

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
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
Where does it teach that such a discipline did not come into being in the earliest days of the church?

First lets deal with the scriptures then we can look at the early church. What do the scriptures say?

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3265545]
Originally Posted by justasking4

Is it not true that even though the catholic church today believes those things in the list these men did not?

Church Militant
Don’t really know for sure do we, since they didn’t write about them.
If you don’t have any documents then all you have is speculations.

However, I have a theory about that too.

Reasons Why I Believe in The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Assumption

i will look at this later.

 

[CentralFLJames]

These may be inner qualities of a servant but they are not speaking of the qualifications of a leader in the church. Go to I Timothy 3:4-7 for that.

My argument is not with Christ but with how the catholic church uses the scriptures to support its doctrines. I’ve asked this before: Where does Jesus mandate that a man must be celibate to serve?

Justasking - pardon me for saying this but your whole tone here is just “improper” - especially within the context of a Sola Scriptura discussion. The more and more you drone on about insisting on your interpretation over another person’s interpretation the more you perforate Sola Scriptura. You see once you have abandoned the notion of being obedient to any authority (what I claim Sola Scriptura invites) you have no basis for telling anyone else how to read “their” bible. With what authority do you speak that would compel anyone to ignore one scripture over another one to make a case for an opinion you have in trying to teach The Church that Timothy 3:4-7 must be the standard for running its affairs over another. Do you really think that in your less than 50 years of life (being generous here) on this planet that you have enough experience to teach a 2000 year old Church that is steeped in theology, tradition, revelation of the Holy Spirit, hundreds of miles of archives, and scholarship how it must define its doctrine? Sorry to be the one to break your bubble but Christianity is not a Democracy where a majority wins to define “Truth”. Don’t you feel a little insolent in even thinking to “teach” the Teacher? If the Church would not listen to the disordered intellect of Luther to abandon her truth why should she listen to a disciple of his?

The Church does not need your permission to do what it does nor need explain every decision she makes to anyone (she is her own authority and is above the reproach of mortals). But I will make the general conveyance that is sufficient to answer your question here. But the essence of all of your questions are all really extending from one root problem you have. What you really ask here and in every other question you ask in these forums is “by what authority does the Catholic Church do what she does.” To that the answer is that Jesus gave to His Church (through the apostolic succession) the keys (authority) of the kingdom of heaven; **whatever **you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Take note in the Lord’s prayer that we have the words “thy Kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”. This indicates that the scope of the Kingdom on heaven is to include the earth - through the presence of The Church.

This scope of “the kingdom” taken together with the authority given to The Church above make its clear that Christ’s Church answers only to God - not man and not those who want to “protest” authority. Private protestations can be done directly with God at the time of death. As it is The Church has the God given authority to define “whatever” it deems prudent to God’s will. Ergo - the Church defines that celibate priests is the normative prescription for Holy Orders. There are as has been stated special exceptions. Those that find themselves married and being called to a “leadership” position still may serve through the deaconship in a very substantial way. Catholic deacons in fact are required to take a conditional vow of celibacy that in the event they become widowed they will remain chaste and unmarried; in such event they can become priests as well.

But I must correct you on one point. You can’t argue with The Catholic Church without arguing with Christ since the two are as inseparable as a groom is from the bride. This is not to say that the Church is not receptive to the body of Christ (the lay members) becoming very active in service and forwarding ideas and insights through their priests and bishops. In fact the modern Catholic Church greatly encourages participation from the laity.

James

 

[adrift]

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

No that is not what he was saying. What you refer to as apocryphal is not the same books we refer to as apocryphal. You mean the books we refer to as Deuterocanonical books which he gave you a link to which Jesus did use them.

 

[juliamajor]

I proudly study and teach the Deuteros.My Students have discovered much to inspire, and help in their lives.They give solid insight into the Christian era and the movements that formed it.The intertestamental period was not a period of silence but a period of eager anticipation of the Messiah.Pharisees, Saducees and Essenes all have their roots in this period. they didn’t just miraculously appear out of thin air when Jesus came.Roots of resurrection and afterlife theology were heavily emphasized in the Deuteros and the Apocrypha. too bad your leadership didn’t give these books a chance. At least the Reformers ,even though they didn’t think they were inspired thought at least that thought they had value. Ever since they were removed they became the reviled along with the Churches that hold them dear-East & West Catholics.Too bad. You Dwell on the most peculiar things. The Obsession on the celibacy issue is really peculiar and strikes me as saying much more about the poster then the respondents

 

[Philthy]

That may be but he is not the norm. Notice that he was not a catholic before he became a priest.

It is pretty simple-minded of you to hand on this one verse to “prove” that the Catholic discipline of celibacy is “anti-Scriptural”.
It assumes that the Church cannot be his wife (rather than a woman), it assumes that in saying it that Paul is both issuing a “command of the Lord” and that he is “binding” the Church for all time, and it also assumes that Paul never released a Bishop from this requirement via oral tradition, unrecorded in Scripture. None of these issues is even remotely addressed in the verse and, therefore, your insistence on shoving it down our throats is IMHO the result of a hardened heart.

 

[Philthy]

Where does Jesus or Paul teach **you must be celibate **to be a leader?

Where do they teach that if you are married you cannot be a bishop for example?

Where does Scripture teach that the Church cannot exercise its judgement (ie in the context of binding and loosing) in establishing celibacy as the norm in the priesthood?

 

[guanophore]

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

Most of the time, this is not the case. In fact, on this forum you will find that many of us have taken it upon ourselves to study for reasons that have nothing to do with childhood.

** 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.**

Jesus made it clear that the Kingdom would start as a tiny mustard seed and grow into the largest of bushes. WHo recognizes the Mustard from the seed?

 

[guanophore]

**Notice that here Paul is not speaking of bishops. He is speaking of common people and in 1 Cor he is speaking of women.

His instructions for a bishop are really quote clear. Why would the church change them?**

The church has not changed Paul’s instructions at all.

The Latin Church decided it was more prudent to take priests from those that are called to celibacy. It is more difficult for a community to support a family with children than it is a single person.

 

[guanophore]

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.

This is just slander against the Catholic Church. Most of the leadership positions are not occupied by clerics or religious. Priests have a special ministry, and are more free to complete it if they are celibate. They represent Jesus to the people.

It is the other way around! Those who are called to the priestly life are called to celibacy as well. If they are not, then they are called to some other form of leadership, perhaps. Most leadership is not sacramental in nature.

How can you take potshots at this,when you dont’ even believe in the priesthood, or the sacraments?! It is just an opportunity to throw stones, and take the thread off topic.

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?

This is another attempt to derail the thread. If you want to pursuade Catholics to become protestant because you don’t approve of the priesthood, start a new thread.

 

[guanophore]

Not so. What your church has done …

You say things like this because you don’t realize tht we are members of the same Church. There is only one church, and when you tear at the Body, you tear at yourself.

NOt only that, you are derailing the thread. Tired of Sola Scriptura?

 

[guanophore]

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”?

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

What do you hope to accomplish here ja4? You have made it clear that you do not respect the Keys that Jesus gave to the Apostles. Do you hope to convince Catholics that their practices 'nullify the Word of God"?

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?

Most that are called to leadership are not called to the priesthood. You are derailing the thread with your persistent slander.

Is it not true that obedience and disciplines are based on some doctrines?

Pulling at straws to avoid the topic?

 

[guanophore]

My argument is not with Christ but with how the catholic church uses the scriptures to support its doctrines. I’ve asked this before: Where does Jesus mandate that a man must be celibate to serve?

No where! That is why it is a slanderous accusation. All are called to serve, each according to his own gift. Are you not content serving in your present state, ja4? What is making you so unhappy, that you need to grind this axe here, where it does not belong?

 

[guanophore]

First lets deal with the scriptures then we can look at the early church. What do the scriptures say?

How about let’s get back to the topic, and you take this arguement somewhere else?

 

[fbl9]

in St. Matthew 19:12…and ther are eunuch who have made themselves so for the kingdom of God.also see 1 Cor.7:25-29. now you all can get back to the topic.

 

[Old_Scholar]

If you knew what you were talking about that would certainly help. As has been pointed out to you, Limbo was never a doctrine and the clarification was welcome by most all of us.

Who knows, maybe some of the n-C communities will follow the lead and “abolish” things like “altar calls” and “the Romans Road to Salvation”.

Limbo consigned to history books
From Richard Owen in Rome

THE Pope is set to abolish the concept of Limbo, overturning a belief held by Roman Catholics since the Middle Ages.
Limbo has long been held to be the place where the souls of children go if they die before they can be baptised. However, a 30-strong international commission of theologians summoned by the late John Paul II last year to come up with a “more coherent and illuminating” doctrine in tune with the modern age is to present its findings to Pope Benedict XVI on Friday.

Vatican sources said yesterday that the commission would recommend that Limbo be replaced by the more “compassionate” doctrine that all children who die do so “in the hope of eternal salvation”.

Maybe you should tell the church it wasn’t a doctrine as they expect to replace it with a “more compassionate doctrine.”

timesonline.co.uk/article/0,13509-1897480,00.html

 

[Old_Scholar]

The church has not changed Paul’s instructions at all.

The Latin Church decided it was more prudent to take priests from those that are called to celibacy. It is more difficult for a community to support a family with children than it is a single person.

You’re just blowing smoke—of course they changed Paul’s teaching.