Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[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?

But you have it all wrong. The Bible teaches agains “man-made traditions.” And the early church fathers believed it…if it couldn’t be proven by Scripture then it was false. How different than the RCC.

 

[epostle]

In his closing address to the World Council of Churches many years ago, Reinhold Niebuhr frankly confessed that the unity of the Catholic Church is impressive and, in some respects enviable, in comparason to Protestant divisions. But the Romanists, he explained, maintained this union at the price of a monstrous heresy. They presumed to “exalt the Church as the ‘extension of the Incarnation,’ as essentially divine, as the mediator of God’s judgment rather than as the locus in human history where the judgments of God can be heard, whether upon the righteous or the unrighteous. This heresy was to obscure the chasm between the human and the divine, which the prophets of Israel understood so well; to pretend that there were priests who were privy to God’s counsels, were in control of God’s redemptive powers and purposes; and were in possession of the keys of heaven.”

blah, blah, blah…this is typical anti-Catholic reformist rhetoric that needs to be exposed for the falsehoods it presupposes.

".“exalt the Church as the ‘extension of the Incarnation,’ as essentially divine…” is false. The Church recognizes its own humanity as well as it’s divinity, with one no more “essential” than the other. Jesus said, "He who hears YOU (Apostles and successors, mere humans) hears ME (divine). Jesus does not say, he who hears your private interpretation of a future book hears me. The Church does not claim to mediate God’s judgement, another reformist obfuscation, but to bind and lose, something an invisible “church” cannot do. The Incarnation itself, and the sacramental principle, is a chasm between the human and divine invented by the reformers that diminishes the Incarnation and its consequences on all of creation. And it is erroneous and misleading to refer to the Church as an extension of the Incarnation and exclude the Eucharst as the primary unifying factor, another item that sits on the top of the “infallible” list of denials and rejections invented by reformism.

Reinhold Niebuhr has the nerve to call Catholicism a heresy when in fact, he hasn’t a clue what he is talking about. Jesus did not hand out 12 sets of keys, or a set of keys to everone with an opinion, Jesus gave Peter and only Peter, and his successors, the keys, and it is the audacity of God to give authority to mere human beings that Niebuhr has issue with, and ultimately, the Incarnation itself.

And the term “Romanist” is just as insulting now as it was when the Anglicans invented it in the 16th century.

 

[justasking4]

No. but i have never heard such an ignorant statement. if the catholics are the ones who wrote the Bible. How could they not believe it?

What do you mean when you say “catholics” wrote the Bible?

 

[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 it should be real easy for a Catholic to support the perpetual virginity, assumption and immaculate conception of Mary in addition to purgatory, “cousins” of Jesus, instead of brothers, Peter being head of the church while there is no proof he was ever in Rome and then start on all the changes the RCC has made from one pope to another…

 

[justasking4]

Where in the Bible does Jesus tell his followers to write things down so they have a book when he’s gone?

Evidently the NT church and the early church believed it was essential to write down the teachings of Jesus for example. Luke 1:1-4 and John 20:31 are a case in point.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

It isn’t that they try to pit Scripture against tradition, they try to support tradition with Scripture but never can. It’s a futile effort without twisting the Scriptures to say what you want them to say.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

**Then I’ll ask you a simple question. Give me the Scriptures that show Mary remained a virgin and that she was “assumed” into heaven. That should be an easy one. **

 

[MrS]

I am a Catholic…just not a Roman Catholic. There’s a difference. We believe in the Church Christ began. Not what it became when Rome took it over.

You are the protestant which you call yourself in your own bio.

.

 

[Old_Scholar]

"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?

So you believe Augustine. Do you believe everything he wrote?

 

[Old_Scholar]

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

**That’s the answer I expected. Your tradition certainly does contradict Scripture. Haven’t you read the Scriptures that say Mary and Josep had sex? Haven’t you read the Scriptures that say Jesus had brothers and sisters?

That takes a lot of “filling the gaps” as you said.**

 

[epostle]

Then it should be real easy for a Catholic to support the perpetual virginity, assumption and immaculate conception of Mary in addition to purgatory, “cousins” of Jesus, instead of brothers, Peter being head of the church while there is no proof he was ever in Rome and then start on all the changes the RCC has made from one pope to another…

This is called cluster bombing: a cheap tactic when a persons arguments have been totally demolished and they cannot defend their position. Funny how its always Mary and purgatory, regardless of the topic.

This thread has turned into a bash fest by anti-Catholic bigots and I appeal to the mods to close the thread.

 

[juliamajor]

Do you know if the Septuagint of the 1st century contained the Deutrocanical books?
In my research of this the earliest Greek manuscripts that include them date from only fourth century A.D. We don’t have a copy of the first century Septuagint to know what its canon was.
The New American Bible has these footnotes on the Apocryha books:The Books of Maccabees, though regarded by Jews and Protestants as apocryphal, i.e., not inspired Scripture, because **not contained in the Palestinian Canon or list of books drawn up at the end of the first century A.D., **have nevertheless always been accepted by the Catholic Church as inspired, on the basis of apostolic tradition.
The Books of Tobit, Judith, and 1 and 2 Maccabees, as well as parts of Esther, are called deuterocanonical: they are not contained in the Hebrew canon but have been accepted by the Catholic Church as canonical and inspired.

The Jews themselves did not accept them as being inspired.

Are there any direct quotes from the deuterocanonical books themsleves in the NT?

There were a number of tests the church used to determine this question. Was it wriiten by an apostle or one associated with one? Was it written by a prophet? Does it tell the truth about God? These would be some of the tests to determine inspiration.

Since the Kethuvim wasn’t settled until 100ad or beyond the Canon of the 1st Century would be unsettled.The Kethuvim was in flux for many years.Though they don’t consider The Deuterocanonicals sacred they don’t have the contempt that oozes from some branches of Protestantism

 

[Old_Scholar]

I think I just pointed that out to him in a PM exchange.

**Actually my questions didn’t claim you “believed” anything in particular. I initially asked why you don’t believe the Scripture is the truth and the sufficient truth?

It’s hard to tell what one believes but what the church teaches is a matter of public record.**

 

[MrS]

That’s a really good question. Tell my why Catholics don’t believe Jesus had brothers and sisters when the Scriptures say He did. Tell me why Catholics say Mary remained a virgin when the Scriptures say Joseph “knew” his wife. Tell me why Catholics believe in the assumption of Mary when there is nothing in the Bible to support that or the immaculate conception. All made up. Tell me why Catholics believe in the primacy of the pope while Scripture says different…

I could go on but I believe you get the point.

Because He did not have any brothers and sisters born of Mary.

You should search here at CAF for the understanding of brethren, cousin, Greek, no word for cousin/nephew etc.

Scriptures do not say He did. The combination of your personal catechesis, and the translations to English without understanding have led you to this error. By the way, most protestants have dropped this arguement after a little education.

Even most protestants believe Mary remained a virgin…including Luther.

but time out… we have already given more than enough proofs for the falicy of Scripture Alone as the sole rule of Faith… you simply refuse to dialogue or refuse to see the obvious.

NOTHING in Catholic Doctrine contradicts Sacred Scripture… after all … it is OUR book. (the opposite is also true)

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3277212]Tradition is a living and growing thing that is held in the very actions and attitudes of the Catholic community itself as well as in The Catholic Teaching. We are a family who cherishes our heritage yet we recognize that we live in an evolving world. I can not give you a link to Catholic Tradition since it is not a matter of being on the Internet or even “here or there”. But in all fairness as a Sola Scriptura’ist can you give me a link to The Church Tradition that Paul COMMANDS in scripture that Christians must follow? I bet you can’t.

Catholics fully embrace tradition where Protestants reject tradition in favor of scripture only. Please tell me how non-Catholics, and in particular the Sola Scritptura’ists can be obedient to Paul’s commandments about tradition and remain “biblical” if they ignore his explicit commandments? See Paul’s teaching below.

When Paul makes mention of “traditions” what exactly is he referring to? Whose traditions is he speaking of?

So let me give you more insight about Catholic Tradition that may help you ask a better question that leads to something beneficial. Catholic tradition is passed down from proceeding generations and is part of every Catholic’s very identity. Tradition is not a thing that can be pointed to explicitly. No, Tradition is something that is living and evolving and growing through the body of The Church.

Are you saying that no one knows exactly what the Traditions are in your church if you can’t point explicitedly to it?
It would seem then that catholics could have different Traditions if you a catholic doesn’t know explicitedly what they are. Is this correct ?

It must be experienced and enjoined through The Church. If you want to learn Catholic Tradition (or even debate it and shape it) you must first live a Catholic Life. To live the Tradition one must first start off crawling, then walking then soaring with it on wings of faith. Do you want to learn The Tradition that is passed down from our apostolic forefathers and has grown and evolved into what it is today? If so become Catholic.

What do you do about Traditions that were totally unknown to the apostles?

Tradition can’t be taught with one quick “Catholic Tradition for Dummies” cook book. A book is not tradition. But I can tell you what Catholic Tradition is not. It is not like giving a new child in the family a KJV bible and saying: “Good luck son. Take it and run with it; these words are your heritage. Interpret it rightly and maybe I’ll see you on the other side some day”. Tradition must be lived and learned through a combination of following the examples of the religious and through formal education, personal study, contemplative observation, participation in the Mass.

Please also know that according to Catholic understanding, Tradition implies change in continuity with the past. Both elements are essential. If there is no room for adaptation and growth, we are not talking about Tradition but about repetition. To live with others always means to accept some limits. To strive for real community always means to make many compromises of personal preferences. We just can’t have a system of anarchy and be self centered to the exclusion of our neighbors – that would be uncharitable. We all are commanded to both love God and love neighbor (the very definition of Charity). So there is both need for a personal relationship with God as well as a community relationship and worship with God. To come together as a community of God’s people we clearly need some conventions for how to interact with each other. This is what tradition is all about.

[continued]

James

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

I don’t know whether you are really that naive or are just trying to be funny. Maybe you’re so young you don’t really know about Limbo. In any event, this Catholic site I am linking you to will tell you all about it…
catholicplanet.com/RCC/baptism-limbo.htm

 

[Old_Scholar]

It is up to you to point out where this tradition and teaching explicitly contradicts scripture. You will not be able to refute it since scripture is in perfect harmony with the traditions you mention. **I said that tradition does not contradict scripture. I did not say that scripture mirrors word for word everything held and elaborated in tradition. **

We have already given links and witness to the scriptures that relate to this tradition in other forums here. So I am not going to repeat what has already been laborously stated.

Know this. Scripture can not contradict tradition through an act of “silence” or through lack of elaboration and detail on a matter. The Catholic Church did not assemble and publish the bible with the intent that it was ever to be a self study aid sufficient and complete for every person’s salvation. Just as sacraments must be conveyed through the authority of The Church so too must the faith be conveyed as if it was a sacrament itself through the authority of the Church. No one walks into a Catholic Church and proclaims himself Catholic. They must be indoctrinated, baptised, confirmed and work up to full communion with the Church. And once in communion with The Church a person must maintain themselves in a state of grace by frequent use of the sacraments, and through prayer and through further spiritual and educational maturity.

James

Just as I thought. When you get right down to it, you dodge the questions and then have the audacity to blame me for not answering questions…Gross!

 

[davidv]

I don’t know whether you are really that naive or are just trying to be funny. Maybe you’re so young you don’t really know about Limbo. In any event, this Catholic site I am linking you to will tell you all about it…
catholicplanet.com/RCC/baptism-limbo.htm

The opening line of this article reads

The Concept

Four different types of limbo have been suggested.

What part of “suggested” implies settled doctrine or dogma?

 

[justasking4]

Before the canon of the Bible, the Christian Rule of Faith (TRADITION) included

• belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate,
• the authority of Tradition itself,
• the authority of Scripture,
• the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon),
• the Eucharist as Sacrifice,
• belief in baptismal regeneration,
• prayers for the dead,
• veneration of the Saints,
• the Seven sacraments,
• the evangelical counsels,
• the annointing of the sick by the priests
• and others.

The historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.

That is a PARTIAL list of Sacred Traditions. This is the second time it has been posted, yet you keep demanding a list, OS.

Thanks for the list. Would you agree that not all of these things were taught by the apostles?

 

[Ignatius]

Thanks for the list. Would you agree that not all of these things were taught by the apostles?

Nope, with the exception of “the evangelical counsels”, (it’s eccumenical councils), they are all of Apostolic origin except those which are of Hebrew origin.

God Bless.