Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[Tim_Kirchoff]

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…

Your answers are all in Scripture and you should be able to find them for yourself. I won’t do your research for you.

:ehh:

 

[MrS]

Where did the apostles teach
• prayers for the dead,
• veneration of the Saints,???

Because of persecution of the One True Church, the Apostles and the early Christians met in secret, often underground in the Catecombs. There they were catechised in the Faith. And there the Mass was said.

In fact, of all the pictures, etchings etc in the Catecombs, the most common and prevelant ones are those pertaining to the Eucharist and the Real Presence… but I digress

The bodies of the martyers (saints for sure) were venerated. Relics of these saints were retained (a Jewish custom) and venerated.

And as Paul said, they are more alive than we are.

Scripture records Jesus telling the good and faithful steward that he will have more to do in Heaven… duh… what could that be.
He can’t help those in heaven… they are already there
He can’t help those in hell… they can’t be helped…
Must be us and those who are unable (nothing unclean) to enter heaven… and all we have to do is ask.

.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Too bad about the Deuterocanonical books being tossed. The are a terrific insight into the so called"years of silence" that other brethren claim. The intertestamental period was one of formation in jewish thought(resurrection of the dead- afterlife) that is only hinted at in the OT but comes to fruition at the time of Jesus The Deuteros are now gaining a healthy respect in Protestant quarters and only the most extreme discount them altogether.If you read commentaries or almost any sound book on scripture the septuagint and the Deuteros are always in the Bibliography and are used in Bible translations.

I agree with you that they are useful—but not inspired or to be used for teaching about salvation or grace. They merely make interesting reading and fill in some blanks in history. Even Martin Luther claimed that, as did the translators of the KJV.

The claim isn’t that they’re not useful, they are not inspired and weren’t used by the New Testament writers.

 

[Canto]

LUKE 1:48 ALL GENERATIONS SHALL CALL ME BLESSED

Mary’s beloved Son was brutally butchered on the cross for us. AND HOW DO WE REPAY HER?

How do we call Mary blessed?
Do we trash her holy name?
Do we stick the sword in again (Prophecy of Simeon Luke Ch2)
Do we trash the greatness of God by robbing her of every single itty-bitty bit of grace freely given to her God?

“…if the Mother were fictitious, the flesh would also be fictitious … and the scars of the Resurrection…" (St Augustine)

“…in every generation she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God…” (Wisdom 7:27)

Or as some one so profoundly once noted (wish I had a name to credit them) “No Mary, no Jesus. Know Mary, Know Jesus.”

St. Ambrose (source?) said Mary was the first to witness and believe the resurrection of Jesus

As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).

“Mary, the holy Virgin, is truly great before God and men. For how shall we not proclaim her great, who held within her the uncontainable One, whom neither heaven nor earth can contain?” Epiphanius, Panarion, 30:31 (ante A.D. 403).

“She is all beautiful, all near to God. For she, surpassing the cherubim. Exalted beyond the seraphim, is placed near to God.” John of Damascene, Homily on the Nativity, 9 (ante A.D. 749).

“May we deserve to have the help of your intercession in heaven, because as the Son of God has deigned to descend to us through you, so we also must come to him with you.” Peter Damian, (ante A.D. 1072).

O Mary my heart never cease to love you, my tounge never cease to praise [not worship] you - St Bonaventure.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Philthy:
If this were true then every Christian would agree on what it teaches - we know they dont and therefore your claim has to be rejected.

The first problem with your comment is that it is logically flawed. To say that “believers” must be baptized does not mean that someone incapable of belief is excluded from baptism. In order to draw that conclusion, Scripture would need to say “only those old enough to believe and who actually believe are to be baptized” Unfortunately for your position is says no such thing.
The second problem with your comment is the direct command of Christ is to “make disciples” by - and he says it in this order -
1)baptizing them and
2)teaching them. (cf Matt 28:19)

---

---

Well I guess an infant can be a disciple of God according to your definition. That means an infant must adhere to the teachings of God. How can one do that?

 

[Old_Scholar]

I think the single saddest thing on this thread is that the level of animosity is apparently so high that Old Scholar cannot simply admit that he made a spelling mistake, but instead expects us to believe that the vatican website has its online catechism with spelling errors in it. Perhaps Old Scholar is unfamiliar with the “spell check” feature which instantly corrects such problems.
Be certain that our Lord is watching all of us to see if we can find some compassion for him in our hearts despite our disagreements. Which will we choose - compassion or hatred?

You keep making such a big issue of this. Don’t you have the capability of recognizing a MSWord feature? Pitiful.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Well I guess an infant can be a disciple of God according to your definition. That means an infant must adhere to the teachings of God. How can one do that?

Can an infant defy God’s will? “Whoever is not against us is with us”

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by juliamajor
Too bad about the Deuterocanonical books being tossed. The are a terrific insight into the so called"years of silence" that other brethren claim. The intertestamental period was one of formation in jewish thought(resurrection of the dead- afterlife) that is only hinted at in the OT but comes to fruition at the time of Jesus The Deuteros are now gaining a healthy respect in Protestant quarters and only the most extreme discount them altogether.If you read commentaries or almost any sound book on scripture the septuagint and the Deuteros are always in the Bibliography and are used in Bible translations.

Old Scholar
I agree with you that they are useful—but not inspired or to be used for teaching about salvation or grace. They merely make interesting reading and fill in some blanks in history. Even Martin Luther claimed that, as did the translators of the KJV.

The claim isn’t that they’re not useful, they are not inspired and weren’t used by the New Testament writers.

Its also important to note that not all church fathers supported the apocrypha. In fact Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, and the great Roman Catholic biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, Jerome, all opposed inclusion of the Apocrypha. In the second century A.D. the Syrian Bible (Peshitta) did not contain the Apocrypha.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Paul’s’ letters being earlier then gospel and the other letters were they only NT “scripture " available at the time of the Infant church. earliest Gospel was at least thirty years after Jesus. So Most of scripture used would be OT.We have Oral teaching- tradition that passed Jesus’ words around. From New Light On The Difficult Words Of Jesus” by David Bivin"The transmission of oral literature by rabbis and disciples approached 100% accuracy,far greater accuracy then could be achieved through written transmission.When literature is transmitted in hand-copied documents,inevitably mistakes known as “scribal errors” creep in.The rabbis were aware of this danger.They knew that if their literature were transmitted in writing,it would lose its high degree of accuracy.Therefore,they forbade it’s written transmission.".,“Pursuing this line of reasoning,one can suggest that the first written collection of Jesus’ words and deeds was a Greek work,which may have been a translation of an oral Hebrew collection of Jesus’ deeds and teaching, memorized by Jesus’ first disciples and transmitted with a high degree of accuracy
.Perhaps an early bilingual follower of the Way compiled this collection as he sat listening day by day to the sermons and lessons of the Twelve or one of the other disciples who had been with Jesus from the beginning of his public ministry.As the Twelve preached and taught they interspersed in their presentations many of the deeds and sayings of Jesus.Perhaps the listener to notes in Hebrew and later translated them into Greek or simply translated what he heard into Greek.”. Jesus would have made use of the"Oral Torah" and Mishnah.

So that’s why the church didn’t “write down” their tradition. They didn’t want to have errors in it. They have simply “handed it down” orally for 2000 years…

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by Old Scholar
Well I guess an infant can be a disciple of God according to your definition. That means an infant must adhere to the teachings of God. How can one do that?

Tim Kirchoff;
Can an infant defy God’s will? “Whoever is not against us is with us”

It can’t since it still has the adam nature. See Romans 3:11 where is speaks of those who don’t understand.

 

[Canto]

they are not inspired and weren’t used by the New Testament writers.

Really???

cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm
scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

Jesus said do unto others… Matt… 7:12

this is right out of the deutrocannon… Tobit 4:15

 

[Old_Scholar]

[continued from above]
But Tradition is not an end in itself. “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27), said Jesus when the Pharisees accused him of breaking certain traditional rules that were in conflict with legitimate human needs.
The Catholic understanding of Tradition, what it is and how it comes to regulate our changing life and understanding, really goes back to Scripture, which actually supports the idea of Tradition. For example, the Gospels tell us that Jesus himself was sometimes caught in the argument between the Pharisees and Sadducees. The main difference between the two parties was that the Sadducees wanted to restrict beliefs and rules to what was explicitly written in the Hebrew Scriptures, while the Pharisees held themselves bound by the cumulative wisdom of the ages that had been gathered in the Tradition. On this issue, Jesus took sides very emphatically with the Pharisees against the Sadducees. For instance, in the Gospel of Matthew (22:23-33) he supports the Pharisees’ traditional teaching of the resurrection of the dead.

Paul, in his writings (1 Corinthians 11:23, for example), states very forcefully that he is “handing on” what was “handed on” to him. This “handing on” is a term with a special meaning in the Jewish teaching of the time. It translates into Latin as traditio, from which our English word tradition comes. Paul is evidently convinced that the community of believers has a strong sense about what is important enough to be passed on to the next generation of believers. The Holy Spirit, he believes, will help the community understand what in its experience and customs—and in its vision of the redemption—should really be held on to. In fact, Paul carefully distinguishes between what he offers as his own opinion and what he sees to be the Church Tradition handed on to him.

Tradition is expressed in (and grows from) the Church’s creeds, the records of the Church’s liturgy, the writings of the great teachers, the decrees of popes and councils, the prayer and faith of the people.

See the following quote:

So I am sorry to say I can not point you to a link on the internet and say “here is tradition”. One has to actually go to Church and be an active living member of the Church to experience Tradition. It is a life long process. If you want to know Catholic Tradition you must become Catholic. One can walk into any Catholic Church in the world and within some permitted variations for local traditional that reflect native country and language and state of social development one will always see the same universal Catholic Tradition in the life of the people and in the reverence by the same to its past and its willful obedience to the Catholic Teaching.

James

Well at least you tried. Your “cut-n-paste” was from a good Catholic site (Edited)…

It all boils down to the “changes” in tradition according to today’s times…Is that why the RCC keeps changing its tradition?

 

[Old_Scholar]

As I stated before, there have been no changes. Perhaps if you seriously read the information I gave you, you would understand the Church’s position on this topic. Obviously you have failed to read through the information.

Once again, Old Scholar, you have failed to do your homework.

You can keep deflecting my comments that way but the truth is that you can’t answer my question because you know it is true. Is it going to be necessary for me to list all the changes through the years when a new pope would come that disagreed with the previous “infallible” pope and change dogma?

 

[Old_Scholar]

BTW Old Scholar, you still have not answered explained to us the difference between salvation and redemption. You still have not given us your conception of what grace is. You still have not given us your conception what the Church is.

If you really want to be taken seriously it would really behoove you to give us the answers to these questions according to your own understanding.

I would really be interested to see if your understanding on these very important topics squares with the rest of what mainline protestantism really believes.

I do not know for certain if any of the other Catholic posters on this thread would like your explanation. But I certainly would like some ANSWERS from you.

On other posts in due time. I’m still trying to get a legitimate answer on this post.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

Why only a partial. Surely you have it all somewhere…

 

[Old_Scholar]

**Q:If the Bible is the sole authority, Where in the Bible does it tell us what books should go in the Bible?

Q:Which came first the Bible or the Church?

Q:Why would Jesus make us wait almost 400 years for the “book” to come out?Only to have Martin Luther take out 7 books 1,500 years later?

Q:Why didn’t Jesus tell us to wait 1,500 years for Martin Luther,who could “fix” the church that Jesus founded?**

Q:Why do Protestants ignore what the Bible says about the Church?

It doesn’t matter anyway Old Schooler doesn’t even read my posts

Yes I do! I read them all. You are just saying what all the other ones are saying. That doesn’t make it true…

 

[Old_Scholar]

fellowChristian,

While we wait for an answer from O.S., I will begin to reply to your questions with your permission.

While Protestants may admit the foundation by Christ of a religious society, they deny that any church has the right to consider itself the vice-regent of God and commissioned by Him to lead men to their destiny. In the Catholic conception they see the Church confused with the kingdom of God and her authority assimilated to that of the transcendent Deity.

Over the years the leaders of Protestant thought have resisted this claim with a passion which suggests how keenly they recognize it as the keystone of the Catholic religion. 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.”

It would be hard to improve on this passage for clarity on the most radical cleavage that separates Catholic from Protestant Christianity. All other differences are subordinate or merely corollary. Every shade of Protestantism makes the same disclaimer, although naturally for different reasons.

So now we have a Roman Catholic telling us what Protestants believe???

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

So now we have a Roman Catholic telling us what Protestants believe???

So what do you believe about this matter, then? If he’s wrong, then what is right?

 

[Canto]

I agree about Jesus Christ’s Church but I don’t believe the RCC follows Christ’s teachings anymore. At first they did.

If we followed his teachings at first
1)
which teaching do we no longer follow?
a) all of them?
b) some of them - which ones?
When exactly did the Church go wrong?
Do you have a date?
Did Jesus break his promise that the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (Matt 16:18)?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Hi, All
The false doctrine of SS, and “individual interpretation” of Scripture, are the root causes of the splits in the Body of Christ in Protestantism.

And here is scripture that backs this statement up.

Acts 8.
26 But an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert road.
27 And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can’dace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship
28 and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
29 And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.”
30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31 And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him

And: 2Peter

15 And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,”
18 we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
19 And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Also in 2Peter: Peter makes the point that in all of Pauls letters there are things that are hard to understand.

Comment: In verse 21 notice Peter says men moved by the Holy Spirit. In this world there seems to be a lot of men like Luther, Calvin ETC. up to the present time with different intepertations that were moved by the Holy Spirit and the results can be seen today.

Peace,OneNow1

Isaiah was a prophet and Peter said Prophecy was difficult to understand. He was not speaking of Scripture, but prophecy. How could this eunuch understand prophecy in light of what Peter said?