Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[guanophore]

So…if I left and never returned to my wife and five month old daughter in order to teach people about a God who stresses the importance and priority of being a husband and a father does not that seem a little hypocritical? I am not trying to toss faith nor reason aside. We cannot speak with power where Scripture is silent, so I will not go to the wall for this, but it would seem as if Peter, maybe, took family with him. Or maybe he came home on the “weekends” or maybe his family were martyered, or his wife left with the children we he picked up this “Christian stuff”. But to say that an Apostle, one of the foundations of the Church, abandoned his wife (and possibly children) for the sake of the Gospel, now that is silly.

And, call it what you want, it is abandonment. Whether it was for a good reason or a bad reason, it was abandonment if he did this. I am not sure what else I could call LEAVING the wife you gave yourself to in holy matrimony, before Holy God by covenant, outside of death.

You can impose whatever constructs upon it you like, I suppose. I think it is narrow minded, but you do have free will!

We know that Peter was married when he was called and had a house in Capernum because Jesus went there and healed his mother in law. (Mk 1:29).

I don’t think we can make assumptions that becuase Peter “left all to follow (Jesus)” that this equals “abandonment” of his family. We don’t know what kind of arrangements he made to provide for them. We do know that he was not running the fishing business at that time.

 

[guanophore]

Isn’t it a little wierd how Catholics, who don’t really believe Scripture but believe Tradition instead, always, when pressed for an answer, **refer to Scripture **for proof???

Am I the only one who notices this?

Just you and the other anti- Catholics, OS. You see, you are looking through your bigoted glasses, and that is why you make false accusations of this kind. You keep stating, though you have been corrected many times, that Catholics do not believe “Tradition instead” but Tradition also. We believe that both represent God’s Divine Revelation. We also believe that they should not be separated from one another, as our anti-Catholic brethren have done.

 

[Old_Scholar]

It’s actually fairly similar to how Protestants, when confronted with the fact that the Bible does NOT teach a “Scripture-only” or “Scripture-alone” philosophy (and actually warns AGAINST it), bury their heads in the sand, refuse to acknowledge the facts, and resort to posting more lies and inaccuracies about Catholics and Catholic teaching.

Sound like anyone you know?

I challenge you to present a Scripture that I have distorted or changed!

 

[Old_Scholar]

This is a completely false characterization of the Catholic teaching as well as completly contraditcs the testimony and witness of those Catholics who have posted in these forums. You know very well that The Catholic Church treats the scriptures and tradition with equal weight with the caveat that no tradition is embraced which contradicts scripture. This is a canard and you know it.

James

Then I am sure you will not mind listing the Scriptures that support the tradition of the Immaculate Conception, the perpetual virginity of Mary and the assumption of Mary? I am sure you should be able to do this as you do not follow any tradition that is not supported by Scripture…

 

[wanner47]

I challenge you to present a Scripture that I have distorted or changed!

I said:

It’s actually fairly similar to how Protestants, when confronted with the fact that the Bible does NOT teach a “Scripture-only” or “Scripture-alone” philosophy (and actually warns AGAINST it), bury their heads in the sand, refuse to acknowledge the facts, and resort to posting more lies and inaccuracies about Catholics and Catholic teaching.

Sound like anyone you know?

Where in my post did I say that you “distorted or changed Scripture”? I never made that claim at all.

But since I have your attention… care to answer my earlier questions?

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?

Old Scholar:
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?

Old Scholar:
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?

Old Scholar:
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?

 

[Old_Scholar]

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

Sorry but this came directly from the Vatican site. You can argue with them about the mispelling. I merely copied and pasted it.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Sorry but this came directly from the Vatican site. You can argue with them about the mispelling. I merely copied and pasted it.

What are you doing spying on us?

 

[Old_Scholar]

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

I’ll only list part of the index, since you can’t find it:

Light
Baptism as, 1216
“Children of light,” 736, 1216, 1695
Christ as, 280, 529, 748, 1202, 2466, 2665, 2715
and darkness, 285, 1707
Decalogue as, 1962
of faith, 26, 89, 286, 298, 2730
God as, 157, 214, 234, 242, 257
of reason, 37, 47, 156-57, 1955
as symbol, 697, 1027, 1147, 1189
Word of God as, 141, 1785
of the world, 1243, 2105, 2466

Likeness to GodBaptism, the sacrament that confers conformity to the image of God, 1682
creatures bear a resemblance to God, 41
man’s resemblance to God, 225, 705, 1604, 1701-09, 2319, 2331, 2784
union of the Divine Persons and the fraternity of men, 1878
ways to restore the divine likeness, 734, 2572

Limbo, 1261. See also Baptism; Funerals

Limits, therapeutic, 2278

Listening
God hears man’s cry, 2657
God the Father always hears Jesus, 2604
to Jesus teaching us to pray, 2598
to the Word of God, 709, 900, 1651, 2578, 2584, 2656, 2716, 2724, 2835

Litanies, 1154, 1177

Liturgical music, 1156-58

I’m sure you can follow it from here…

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

I’ll only list part of the index, since you can’t find it:

Light
Baptism as, 1216
“Children of light,” 736, 1216, 1695
Christ as, 280, 529, 748, 1202, 2466, 2665, 2715
and darkness, 285, 1707
Decalogue as, 1962
of faith, 26, 89, 286, 298, 2730
God as, 157, 214, 234, 242, 257
of reason, 37, 47, 156-57, 1955
as symbol, 697, 1027, 1147, 1189
Word of God as, 141, 1785
of the world, 1243, 2105, 2466

Likeness to GodBaptism, the sacrament that confers conformity to the image of God, 1682
creatures bear a resemblance to God, 41
man’s resemblance to God, 225, 705, 1604, 1701-09, 2319, 2331, 2784
union of the Divine Persons and the fraternity of men, 1878
ways to restore the divine likeness, 734, 2572

Limbo, 1261. See also Baptism; Funerals

Limits, therapeutic, 2278

Listening
God hears man’s cry, 2657
God the Father always hears Jesus, 2604
to Jesus teaching us to pray, 2598
to the Word of God, 709, 900, 1651, 2578, 2584, 2656, 2716, 2724, 2835

Litanies, 1154, 1177

Liturgical music, 1156-58

I’m sure you can follow it from here…

:doh2: That has nothing to do with my question. I’m asking how that passage shows that Limbo is/was an offical teaching. In the sections you provided, I did not see the word “Limbo” anywhere!

 

[Old_Scholar]

I said:

Where in my post did I say that you “distorted or changed Scripture”? I never made that claim at all.

But since I have your attention… care to answer my earlier questions?

Some of your questions are a little ridiculous—like how do I know you are not infallible.

The words can’t be different and the message the same. You’re showing how the RCC takes it, not Protestantism.

An “untruth” is not hard to find, since Scripture says it is truth.

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?

You can’t find ‘once saved always saved in the Bible.’ That is a misinterpretation of Scripture. That isn’t all that hard to refute.
All you have to do is read Romans. It isn’t a mystery.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I said:

Where in my post did I say that you “distorted or changed Scripture”? I never made that claim at all.

But since I have your attention… care to answer my earlier questions?

:doh2: That has nothing to do with my question. I’m asking how that passage shows that Limbo is/was an offical teaching. In the sections you provided, I did not see the word “Limbo” anywhere!

**I guess you don’t know about the “Pelagian controversy” but if you did, you would understand the meaning of Limbus Infantium. Catechism 1250, 1257 and 1261, explains it pretty well.

To say that the Catholic church did not teach a Catechism would be considered a little disingenius. **

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Isn’t it a little wierd how Catholics, who don’t really believe Scripture but believe Tradition instead, always, when pressed for an answer, **refer to Scripture **for proof???

Am I the only one who notices this?

Old Scholar,

I don’t really know why so many expend so much energy with the likes of you. It is obvious that you will cling to your falsehoods until the very end and love them.

How could any rational person, in an honest search for Truth, come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church pits Scripture against Tradition, as you here imply? Why on earth must or would it be Scripture OR Tradition?

Answer: no person with a rational mind, in an honest search for Truth, could conclude this.

You have the rational mind that was given to you by God, so you’re out of luck on #2.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Old Scholar,

I don’t really know why so many expend so much energy with the likes of you. It is obvious that you will cling to your falsehoods until the very end and love them.

How could any rational person, in an honest search for Truth, come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church pits Scripture against Tradition, as you here imply? Why on earth must or would it be Scripture OR Tradition?

Answer: no person with a rational mind, in an honest search for Truth, could conclude this.

You have the rational mind that was given to you by God, so you’re out of luck on #2.

His mind is controlled by the emotionalism and pride learned from the reformation false teachings.

 

[Stephen_C]

I will repeat this one more time…

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.

 

[wanner47]

Some of your questions are a little ridiculous—like how do I know you are not infallible.

Well, how do you know I’m not? Just answer the question instead of dodging it.

I don’t see how it’s ridiculous at all, since *you *expect *me *to consider *your *interpretations infallible.

The words can’t be different and the message the same. You’re showing how the RCC takes it, not Protestantism.

If that’s the case, why are there 10,000+ Protestant denominations? By your theory, shouldn’t everyone be getting the same “message” every time they read the Bible?

An “untruth” is not hard to find, since Scripture says it is truth.

But how do you KNOW it’s an untruth, if someone can support their assertions with Scripture?

**You can’t find ‘once saved always saved in the Bible.’ That is a misinterpretation of Scripture. That isn’t all that hard to refute.

All you have to do is read Romans. It isn’t a mystery.**

Tell that to a Baptist, and they’ll say that you’re just misinterpreting Scripture, and that it DOES teach OSAS.

What about divorce, or infant baptism? There are many different teachings about those subjects on in many different denominations. How do you know which one is right?

 

[Stephen_C]

OS,
I am a devout Catholic. I know and live my faith…Take it from me…come a little closer so you can hear what I say…YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT WE AS CATHOLIC’S BELIEVE. OR WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES. And it is rather insulting for you to come here and try to tell us what we believe. Which for the record is not what we believe or the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I challenge you to present a Scripture that I have distorted or changed!

"none of them; none of them is truly Catholic and being Catholic is the chief family trait by which I’m identified. “the Church of the Christian religion is called Catholic, not only by her own members but even by our enemies; for when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, they willy-nilly call her nothing else but Catholic for they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard.” St. Augustine.

do i need to say more?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Then I am sure you will not mind listing the Scriptures that support the tradition of the Immaculate Conception, the perpetual virginity of Mary and the assumption of Mary? I am sure you should be able to do this as you do not follow any tradition that is not supported by Scripture…

Once again OS you twist words to see them the way that YOU want to. I told you that the church never embraces tradition that CONTRADICTS with scripture. We elaborate on scripture through tradition. Scripture is sometimes very silent on some details or have limited conveyance. Tradition fills in the gaps.

But it is not the same thing as saying we do not have additional revelation and insight held in tradition that is supported by scripture, and does not contradict scripture but is not laboriously expanded by scripture. For example “the trinity” is in scripture but its not spelled out - its inferred or derivable through other things. Our tradition and teaching is formed in this same manner.

I will not be bullied into taking positions I did not assert nor diverted to tangential topics to the points I raised.

Shame on You

James

 

[Church_Militant]

OS,
I am a devout Catholic. I know and live my faith…Take it from me…come a little closer so you can hear what I say…YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT WE AS CATHOLIC’S BELIEVE. OR WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES.

And it is rather insulting for you to come here and try to tell us what we believe. Which for the record is not what we believe or the Catholic Church teaches. I think I just pointed that out to him in a PM exchange.

 

[Church_Militant]

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

Right…let’s just have a look at his supposed reference.

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.