Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[mercygate]

Where do the scriptures teach that a man must be celibate to lead?

Scripture shows that celibacy is not only highly desirable but endorsed by both Our Lord and by St. Paul. Our Lord specifically discusses it in the context of the Resurrection and therefore in the context of His Kingdom. Since the discussion is a private one with those whom He chose to be leaders, it can reasonably be understood that celibacy would be His preference for those whom He calls as leaders.

That the Church has chosen to ordain to His service mainly those men who are willing to embrace Our Lord’s counsel in this matter is to her credit and theirs.

From the earliest times celibacy was encouraged for Priests, and before the universal requirement in the Latin Church, those who were married were expected to live in continenence. The third canon of the Council of Nicea specifically addresses this issue.

To ask where Scripture teaches “that a man must be celibate to lead” is to lose out on the richer meaning provided by a more generous, more receptive, contemplative reading of the text.

 

[juliamajor]

justasking4;3268679:

Where do the scriptures teach that a man must be celibate to leadPlease No More of the Celibacy stuff it’s redundant to the point of frustration. I swear I’ll scream if this keeps going on- you wouldn’t like it when I scream- it is very loud and I’m told strident -kinda like -oh you know! AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHHHAAAA

 

[CentralFLJames]

Where do the scriptures teach that a man must be celibate to lead?

Justasking4, given the exhaustive comments already given you in this topic area should we be taking this extraordinary preoccupation with celibacy in a Monty Python sort of “wink wink nod nod” genre’? Why beat around the bush? If all you just really want to know is if you are eligible for being a leader in The Catholic Church or a priest just ask directly.

James

 

[Canto]

Titus 1:5 that you should reform the things that are wanting

Jer. 16:1-2: The word of the LORD came to me: 2: "You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place.

1 Sam. 21:3-6: And the priest answered David, “I have no common bread at hand, but there is holy bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women.” 5: And David answered the priest, “Of a truth women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition; the vessels of the young men are holy, even when it is a common journey; how much more today will their vessels be holy?”

Matthew 19:2-9 Jesus speaks on the indisolvability of marriage then Peter replies…

Matthew 19:27-29: “Lo, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?” 28 Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.

Revelation 14:3-5: and they sing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste; it is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb, 5 and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are spotless.

 

[epostle]

I’ll start with this one:

It is a defined dogma of the RCC that not only is salvation impossible outside the Church but that to be saved one must be baptized in the RCC, profess the Catholic faith and participate in the communion of the RCC.

This is verified by at least two ecumenical councils and three popes. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII promulgated the Bull Unam Sanctam, wherein these defining words are found:

“With faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin . . . Furthermore, we declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

It seems so clear but then let’s look at the new Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation.”

1. "How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body. . .

1. "This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc. - Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 244 w/Imprimi Potest of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)

My goodness—am I reading that right?

No, you are not. Your selective quotes out of context are misleading. And you refuse to accept what the Church teaches on the matter of “no salvation outside the Church.” FYI, Protestants are considered brothers and sisters in the Lord (CCC817, 818, 819) but you will never post that, it’s contrary to your fist shaking. Run along now, and find some radical traditionalist web site for an argument.

Has the church changed its mind once again?

It is impossible for the Church to invent a doctrine, or change her mind. It is self-proclaimed popes who twist what the Church actually teaches, because they have an attitude or an agenda. I will try and explain to you what development means that may demolish your future perpetual misconceptions.

*"By development of doctrine, we mean that some divinely revealed truth has become more deeply
understood and more clearly perceived than it had been before. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised to send to teach us, the Church comes to see more deeply what she had always believed, and the resulting insights find expression in devotion of the faithful that may have been quite uncommon in the Church’s previous history. The whole spectrum of Christology and Mariology has witnessed such dogmatic progress. Adoration of the Eucharist, therefore, is simply another, though dramatic, example of doctrinal development.

Always implied in such progress is that, objectively, the revealed truth remains constant and unchanged. But through the light of the Holy Spirit, the subjective understanding of the truth becomes more clear, its meaning becomes more certain and its grasp by the believing mind becomes increasingly more firm."

The History of Eucharistic Adoration
Development of Doctrine in the Catholic Church by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.*
therealpresence.org/eucharst/manual/section1/sec1_12a.pdf

This tells us that it is possible for even those who have never heard of Jesus Christ or the Roman Catholic Church might be saved. Now if this isn’t a complete reversal, I don’t know what is.

Your right, you don’t know. Show me an official Catholic document that states that any one who is not baptized is condemned to hell. Our God is merciful, maybe you could tell us about yours.

Salvation Outside the Church
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9909frs.asp

Can Non-Christians Be Saved?
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0403sbs.asp

The Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament were canonized at the same time the Books of the New Testament were officially listed as inspired. If the Church was wrong about the Old Testament, she must have been wrong about the 27 books of the NT. The evidence is found in the Council of Hippo where the first complete list of books of the Bible was compiled, and later confirmed by the Magisterium of the Church, way back at the end of the 3rd century. The same list was affirmed at the Council of Florence and affirmed again at Trent. Objectors to the inspiration of the Deuterocanonical Books must ignore this fact, as you do, Old Scholar.

How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp

DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS
by James Akin
cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm

 

[guanophore]

Where do the scriptures teach that a man must be celibate to lead?

Nowhere. This is a slanderous accusation you make against the Church. Such activity tears at the Body of Christ, and wounds the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

If you were unwilling to sacrifice your own life to serve only the Kingdom, that is your choice. But do not malign those that accept this Gift.

 

[guanophore]

Where do the scriptures teach that a man must be celibate to lead
juliamajor;3268741:

Please No More of the Celibacy stuff it’s redundant to the point of frustration. I swear I’ll scream if this keeps going on- you wouldn’t like it when I scream- it is very loud and I’m told strident -kinda like -oh you know!

Now you are sounding opposite of someone’s mother. The mother screamed that her son was having sex! Even though one might be called to the priesthood, one might have craved for intimacy with a woman so deeply, never having had real love from one’s mother, that one might spurn the calling, and later, become an enemy of the Church. Such things are evident by one’s hatred of teachings of celibacy, and teachings about the Mother of God. We see these here now on this forum.

Justasking4, given the exhaustive comments already given you in this topic area should we be taking this extraordinary preoccupation with celibacy in a Monty Python sort of “wink wink nod nod” genre’? Why beat around the bush? If all you just really want to know is if you are eligible for being a leader in The Catholic Church or a priest just ask directly.

James

One may have been born into a Catholic family, and one may have been called to the priesthood, but one’s relationship with one’s mother may be severely damaged, resulting in hatred toward authority, and toward the Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Holy an Immaculate Mother of God. On may, in the grip of one’s flesh, desire the comfort to that flesh mor than one might desire to sacrifice for the Kingdom.

 

[Pearson]

Titus 1:5 that you should reform the things that are wanting

Jer. 16:1-2: The word of the LORD came to me: 2: "You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place.

1 Sam. 21:3-6: And the priest answered David, “I have no common bread at hand, but there is holy bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women.” 5: And David answered the priest, “Of a truth women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition; the vessels of the young men are holy, even when it is a common journey; how much more today will their vessels be holy?”

Matthew 19:2-9 Jesus speaks on the indisolvability of marriage then Peter replies…

Matthew 19:27-29: “Lo, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?” 28 Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.

Revelation 14:3-5: and they sing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste; it is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb, 5 and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are spotless.

This is, I am sorry to say, a poor use of Scripture. You cannot pull out certain people who were not married, and then use that for your argument. On the converse side of your argument you could say that Peter, the supposed first Pope, was married. The brothers (proof that Jesus had kin-folk) of Jesus were married, and at least some of the other Apostles were.

 

[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”.

**It simply isn’t right to say the Catholic church considered Limbo only a theory when it was listed, and still is, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does** list Limbo in its index.
Furthermore it is covered under baptism in Catechism # 1250, 1257 and 1261. They read:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by poriginal sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The shee gratuitousness of the grace of of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

1257 The Lord Himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvagion for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaikmed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of the water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

This is what was reversed by the pope in 2006. Now whether this was considered a doctrine or not, it definitely was taught in the church for hundreds or thousands of years and not what do we believe about all those babies that died during that time???

What state are they in? Does the pope’s declaration allow them to move on to heaven? Or are they simply forgotten. I suppose the parents of those children who have thought for years their children were lost would like to know.

You will find the Catechism here: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

 

[Old_Scholar]

Regarding celibacy, this thread is getting too far off subject. This was started to discuss Why do Roman Cathlics no accept Sola Scriptura?

I too am guilty for asking about Limbo. That is off topic as well.

Please restrict you comments and questions to that subject. Thank you.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

**It simply isn’t right to say the Catholic church considered Limbo only a theory when it was listed, and still is, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does** list Limbo in its index.
Furthermore it is covered under baptism in Catechism # 1250, 1257 and 1261. They read:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by poriginal sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The shee gratuitousness of the grace of of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

1257 The Lord Himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvagion for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaikmed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of the water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

This is what was reversed by the pope in 2006. Now whether this was considered a doctrine or not, it definitely was taught in the church for hundreds or thousands of years and not what do we believe about all those babies that died during that time???

What state are they in? Does the pope’s declaration allow them to move on to heaven? Or are they simply forgotten. I suppose the parents of those children who have thought for years their children were lost would like to know.

You will find the Catechism here: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Forgive me, but I don’t see the word “limbo” in there anywhere. Care to point out how this is limbo?

 

[Old_Scholar]

I will make a summation of my position on this subject of Sola Scriptura.

I believe most Catholics as well as Protestants believe the Scriptures to be the word of God. Protestants believe the Scriptures to contain everything we need for salvation and any matters of faith and morals. Protestants believe that any Tradition that differs from Scripture or can’t be supported by Scripture, is false Tradition. I believe I have shown by Scripture and writings of the early church fathers that they believed that as well.

Catholics seem to believe that Scripture is the word of God and is the pillar and foundation of faith, but they also believe that Scripture must be translated by Tradition. Some seem to believe that Tradition and Scripture are equal in authority along with the Magestrium. Protestants deny that the Scriptures or Tradition reveal that belief.

There are some Catholics here that believe as the Protestants do, that the Tradition has to be in harmony with Scripture or else it is invalid. While the Magestrium may interpret Scripture and teach what the meaning is, according to Scripture and Tradition, I don’t believe very many here believe that if Tradition contradicts Scripture, then it is valid. I maintain that the Scripture and the Tradition of the early church fathers teach that.

I personally believe Tradition is important to the church. I agree that without Tradition, there are many things that may be hidden from us, but the moment any tradition contradicts Scripture, then I must label it false.

The real purpose of the Reformation was to correct the perceived errors of the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible’s Authority and to reject added-on tradition as a sourc or original authority in addition to the Bible. traditions which did not have Biblical support or expressly contradicted Scripture.

I believe Most Catholics will agree with this definition but get so “locked into” words like “sola Scriptura” they really don’t know what it means. While it truly means “Bible alone” it does not set aside Tradition; just any Tradition that contradicts the Bible. That seems quite reasonable. If we all agree that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then how can we believe anything that contradicts it?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Off Topic Note…

I believe the Giants will defeat the Patriots handily on Sunday!

 

[guanophore]

This is, I am sorry to say, a poor use of Scripture. You cannot pull out certain people who were not married, and then use that for your argument. On the converse side of your argument you could say that Peter, the supposed first Pope, was married. The brothers (proof that Jesus had kin-folk) of Jesus were married, and at least some of the other Apostles were.

Yes, and Peter asked what would be the result because they had left all to follow Jesus. There is no evidence that Peter or the brethren of the Lord ever returned to marital relations after they were called.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Forgive me, but I don’t see the word “limbo” in there anywhere. Care to point out how this is limbo?

If you had checked the link I provided, you would have found that 1261 is listed under Limbo.

 

[mercygate]

Regarding celibacy, this thread is getting too far off subject. This was started to discuss Why do Roman Cathlics no accept Sola Scriptura?

I too am guilty for asking about Limbo. That is off topic as well.

Please restrict you comments and questions to that subject. Thank you.

You are correct, although the topic of celibacy arose in connection with the counsel Paul gives to Timothy concerning the qualifications of a bishop. Therefore, it is not widely off topic since it answers in this one case, the thoroughly untenable accusation that the Catholic discipline of clerical celibacy fails to accept the authority of Scripture.

In fact, the accusation requires pitting one passage of Scripture against another, as if they were in contradiction, which amounts to violence against the Word of God.

While Catholics do not recognze sola Scriptura, we have forcefully demonstrated here that celibacy, as a practice for the Church, is deeply embedded in the “whole counsel of God.” To deny that would be to exercise a level of disingenuous contumacy unbecoming of an honest man.

 

[SPH1]

Notice in 1 Tim 3:16-17, it does not say “ONLY”!. Sacred Scriptures is not the only rule of faith!

Second. the Apostle Paul told his followers to stand fast on Traditions which they received by Him either in writing or oral:

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

You are correct. And the catch-22 for Old Scholar is that the “God Breathed Scripture” specifically admits of tradition…and an authorative Church. If Old Scholar actually followed the “God Breathed Scripture” he’d accept that.

 

[mercygate]

I will make a summation of my position on this subject of Sola Scriptura.
. . .

Catholics seem to believe that Scripture is the word of God and is the pillar and foundation of faith, but they also believe that Scripture must be translated by Tradition. Some seem to believe that Tradition and Scripture are equal in authority along with the Magestrium. Protestants deny that the Scriptures or Tradition reveal that belief.

Catholics believe that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (I Tim 3:15) – and that our faith is true. Scripture is NOT the pillar because without the Church from which it arose, it would be subject to the idiosyncratic, subjective interpretation of anybody who happened to come across it.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Does the catholic church today consider protestant translations of the Scripture to be heretical?

Mainstream protestant translations are using Catholic manuscripts.

This began in the 1960s with the Presbytarian and Lutheran churches utilizing our Lectionary.

The RSV is the same translation as the Catholic one, except for one major flaw: it is missing the deuterocanon.

Robert

 

[mercygate]

Mainstream protestant translations are using Catholic manuscripts.

This began in the 1960s with the Presbytarian and Lutheran churches utilizing our Lectionary.

The RSV is the same translation as the Catholic one, except for one major flaw: it is missing the deuterocanon.

Robert

As is common, my Protestant RSV has the deuterocanon – inserted between the OT and NT and labeled “Apocrypha.” But it’s there.