Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[epostle]

Old Scholar, I searched two separate catechism search engines, and a “find” search on the link you provided
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
And “limbo” does not appear in any of them. But I am sure you can see it. The sad thing is, you post very nice catechism quotes, but can’t see what you are posting.

I challenge any sola scripturist, to prove to me the full doctrine of scripture: inerrancy, canonicity, and inspiration, apart from Tradition.

A Visual Diagram of the History of the New Testament Canon
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ45.HTM
Sources for N.T. Canon Chart (all Protestant):

1. Douglas, J.D., ed., New Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962 ed., 194-98.
2. Cross, F.L., and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1983, 232,300,309-10,626,641,724,1049,1069;
3. Geisler, Norman L. & William E. Nix, From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible, Chicago: Moody Press, 1974, 109-12,117-25.

 

[adrift]

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

Did you read your own post? 1261 is listed under

VI. The Necessity of Baptism

1283 summarizes

With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation.

Why don’t you post it again and highlight the word limbo?

 

[richardwy]

Because the Apostles did not?

 

[fellowChristian]

Where in the Bible does it say “Scripture Alone”?

Show me book,chapter and verse.

While you are at it…

Could you also show me where it says that the Bible is the sole authority.

Show me book, chapter and verse please.

 

[CentralFLJames]

**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 (SP) 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 (SP) 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 (SP) for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaikmed (SP) 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

This resembles the CCC but is a bogus copy.

Where did you get this from? It’s full of typos and spelling errors. Either you’ve been working to a bogus copy of the Catechism or your copy-and-paste feature is infected with a virus or you are incompetently re-typing it out of context. Which is the case?

I am making a wildly speculative hunch here. By chance where you ever previously employed by the Catholic Church as an administrative editor or proof reader and terminated for job performance related issues? No offense here, but I was just wondering if your scorn for the Catholic Church could be simply attributed to the unfortunate collusion of personal bitterness taken together with the misunderstandings and misperception of Church doctrine manifest through a crosswired personal objectivity?

James

 

[Pwrlftr]

This resembles the CCC but is a bogus copy.

Where did you get this from? It’s full of typos and spelling errors. Either you’ve been working to a bogus copy of the Catechism or your copy-and-paste feature is infected with a virus or you are incompetently re-typing it out of context. Which is the case?

I am making a wildly speculative hunch here. By chance where you ever previously employed by the Catholic Church as an administrative editor or proof reader and terminated for job performance related issues? No offense here, but I was just wondering if your scorn for the Catholic Church could be simply attributed to the unfortunate collusion of personal bitterness taken together with the misunderstandings and misperception of Church doctrine manifest through a crosswired personal objectivity?

James

Other than the spelling, is what OS posted accurate?

I’ll post also…

CCC:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original 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.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace 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.51

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than 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 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,"63 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.

Now we can all compare what OS posted and what the Vatican’s version of the catechism states. Did OS change anything of substance or did he simply mis-spell some words?

 

[rikkk1958]

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.

Amen to you Mercy gate. Althought OS has some points because of the rational behind the Scriptures that is the foundation of his reasoning, first of all they should thank the Church for giving them something to believe in.
The Church as the Pillar of Faith for Catholics produced the NT to be as guide in addition to the traditions so that we may all be given guidance to the Word of Jesus Christ which is more than the writings of the four authors of the Gospel. The Word is the sole authority.

 

[Newbie2]

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.

We think you have not.

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.

“Seem to believe”? Yes, some do.

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.

So you then take Tradition (big T) as valid?

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.

Who made you pope?

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.

Traditions or traditions? You seem to have lost the distinction.

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?

Yeah, it does set aside Tradition for many Protestants, with the caveat that not all Protestants are alike.

The rub is where the Authority lies; Protestant interpretation is in Scripture alone, Catholics use Scriptural evidence to support the authority of the Magisterium.

THAT is what Catholics would agree.

 

[Pearson]

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.

Than for Paul to make use of the EX-marital status makes no sense in the context of a passage where he talks about his and Barnabas’ right to have a wife. 1. If they used to be married< but were encouraed to divorce at some later point this completely argues against what he is saying. (1 Cor. 9:5). 2. I believe a bigger issue would be that they divorced as believers, which is frowned upon by our Lord Jesus Christ and St. Paul the Apostle. Christ said that if a man divorces his wife, except for in the case of marital infidelity, he forces his wife to commit adultery. Paul said that divorce is only permissible(sp?) if one of the partners is an un-believer and that un-believing partner walks out. If we hold that Peter (the supposed first Pope) got a Scripturally wrong divorce what does that say about him?

 

[Pwrlftr]

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.

Do you think they abandoned their families? I’m not sure what you mean here.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Originally Posted by Old Scholar forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
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?

Why is it my posts get completely ignored?

 

[mercygate]

Do you think they abandoned their families? I’m not sure what you mean here.

No. Tradition does not say they abandoned their families.

Scripture is silent on the status of any of the Apostle’s wives. It is unknown whether Peter’s “gyne” was his wife or or a woman like those who followed Jesus, and if she was his wife, we do not know whether their relationship was continent, as was the norm for elders in the second century Church.

Clearly, although Peter says “we have left everything”, he still had a boat to go back to [was it his own?] when he went fishing with 6 of his buddies, and the Lord’s resurrection appearance to them on the seashore.

mercygate’s pet theory: In Luke 4, when Peter, James and John “leave their nets” immediately after the first miraculous draft of fish, Zebedee disbursed the income from that catch to support their families during the time that they spent away from their trade.

Now back to topic. Scripture “alone” is inconclusive on the marital status of the Apostles. That Peter had a mother-in-law, we know. Whether his wife was alive, we know not.

 

[mercygate]

Than for Paul to make use of the EX-marital status makes no sense in the context of a passage where he talks about his and Barnabas’ right to have a wife. 1. If they used to be married< but were encouraed to divorce at some later point this completely argues against what he is saying. (1 Cor. 9:5). 2. I believe a bigger issue would be that they divorced as believers, which is frowned upon by our Lord Jesus Christ and St. Paul the Apostle. Christ said that if a man divorces his wife, except for in the case of marital infidelity, he forces his wife to commit adultery. Paul said that divorce is only permissible(sp?) if one of the partners is an un-believer and that un-believing partner walks out. If we hold that Peter (the supposed first Pope) got a Scripturally wrong divorce what does that say about him?

I have never heard the speculation that divorce was involved Where are you getting this? What do you referring to in saying that Paul makes use of the EX-marital status?" Or are you referring to somebody else’s allegation?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Why do Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

Because it is not Scriptural.

For Sola Scriptura to be Scriptural one would need to show someplace in Scripture where Sola Scriptura is taught and they would also need to show someplace in Scripture where the Canon of the Bible is explicitly specified. That is what Books belong in the Canon of the Bible.

You will find neither of these.

 

[Pearson]

No. Tradition does not say they abandoned their families.

Scripture is silent on the status of any of the Apostle’s wives. It is unknown whether Peter’s “gyne” was his wife or or a woman like those who followed Jesus, and if she was his wife, we do not know whether their relationship was continent, as was the norm for elders in the second century Church.

Clearly, although Peter says “we have left everything”, he still had a boat to go back to [was it his own?] when he went fishing with 6 of his buddies, and the Lord’s resurrection appearance to them on the seashore.

mercygate’s pet theory: In Luke 4, when Peter, James and John “leave their nets” immediately after the first miraculous draft of fish, Zebedee disbursed the income from that catch to support their families during the time that they spent away from their trade.

Now back to topic. Scripture “alone” is inconclusive on the marital status of the Apostles. That Peter had a mother-in-law, we know. Whether his wife was alive, we know not.

You are right “Scripture Alone” does not answer that question. Nor does it answer the question of what length Jesus’ hair was or the names of the two thieves on the crosses beside His own. Why not? Because these things do not pertain to salvation. Sola Scriptura does not not claim that the Bible teaches everything we need to know PERIOD. Sola Scriptura says that in Scripture is all we need to know pertaining the life and godliness in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Pearson]

I have never heard the speculation that divorce was involved Where are you getting this? What do you referring to in saying that Paul makes use of the EX-marital status?" Or are you referring to somebody else’s allegation?

I said that because if you were saying that the apostles and the brothers of Jesus left their wives, then Paul’s argument for their right to be married and making use of that right makes no sense. Why should we assume that the Apostles left their wives and (possibly) children when they became Apostles? How odd it would be for Peter in 1 Peter 3 to make such a big deal about husbands and wives if he abandoned his own wife and his post as husband? Yet, this is all assumption. We cannot say whether or not they stayed married, but we can call into witness the Scriptures, which tell us God’s view of marriage, the only reasons for getting a divorce and the purpose of marriage.

 

[Ignatius]

Old Scholar:

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

Ignatius:

Where does the New Testament claim that it is inspired? Give us the verses where Jesus said the the Books of the New Testament were Scripture!

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

"quote=Ignatius Where does it claim that the New Testament books are inspired? The only time the inspiration of Scripture 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 are aware that at that time, the New Testament had not been written. The author was therefore referring to the Old Testament. And the Old Testament used in the Greece and the middle East at the time was the Septuagint version. Now the Septuagint version contains the Deuterocanonical books. So, this verse supports the Deuterocanon 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?

I greatly look forward to your reply to these question."

You know this is true and is the real central point of the thread and exactly addresses OP issue. Why do you not answer this my brother.
Hopefully we are all here to find the Truth of the matter and I believe it clear from the above. Or do you not answer because you are here just to win the argument.

May the Lord bless and protect you.
May the Lord smile upon you, and be gracious to you.
May the Lord lift up His countenance upon you and give you His peace.

As always,

Your servant in Christ.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Why do Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

Because it is not Scriptural.

For Sola Scriptura to be Scriptural one would need to show someplace in Scripture where Sola Scriptura is taught and they would also need to show someplace in Scripture where the Canon of the Bible is explicitly specified. That is what Books belong in the Canon of the Bible.

You will find neither of these.

Agree 100%.

The think the Protestants would have us believe that 500+ years of Protestant** tradition** spent preaching the validity of Sola Scriptura somehow imparts through their new tradition a new scriptural truth. Yet every time we tell them to “prove it” scripturally all we get is silence or rhetorical counter-pontification about the errors of infant baptism, Eucharist and papal authority. It’s almost as if the Protestants have embraced hypocrisy, irrationality and contradiction as a religion unto itself.

James

 

[Pwrlftr]

Now I am sure that, you are aware that at that time, the New Testament had not been written. The author was therefore referring to the Old Testament. And the Old Testament used in the Greece and the middle East at the time was the Septuagint version. Now the Septuagint version contains the Deuterocanonical books. So, this verse supports the Deuterocanon 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?

Paul was describing the nature of scripture, not the extent of it. Do you think the NT is not inspired?

Can you list for us the books that the Jews of Jesus’ time held to be canonical? Can you cite which manuscripts we have available for us to examine or can you cite someone such as Josephus or Philo who lists the books for us?

You make a tremendous leap in logic to go from the NT alluding to the apocrypha/deutero’s to claiming they are inspired. Even if you were correct there is no reason to believe this from the NT text. Nowhere in the NT does it quote the deutero’s in a way that would lead someone to believe that they are scripture. The way in which a book is quoted is more important than a simple quotation much less an allusion.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Other than the spelling, is what OS posted accurate?

I’ll post also…

Now we can all compare what OS posted and what the Vatican’s version of the catechism states. Did OS change anything of substance or did he simply mis-spell some words?

The material issue that was at play here was the complete lack of credibility OS had in presenting such careless presentation of CC teaching. Nothing he says can be taken at face value and we have to constantly re-check his sources since he puts “spin” or “personal teaching and opinion” on everything he references.

But to answer your question - No what OS posted is not accurate since he editorialized the reference and misrepresented what the CC teaches by wrapping it in a context of “limbo”. That referenced CCC teaching is presented by the CC within a teaching of the sacrament of Baptism - not “limbo”. So, OS framed the legitimate CC in a manner that was out of context and that becomes disingenuous and pejorative to the truth - and he knows it.

James

James