Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[Tim_Kirchoff]

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?

Isn’t the prophecy of Isaiah part of Scripture?

 

[Old_Scholar]

The promise of a list was conditional upon you providing the list of what Scripture teaches.
I have never seen “the list of what Scripture teaches”.
The Bible is 1200 pages long, wandering, often confusing, but also inspirational and edifying. One thing it is not, however is a “list”.
The list of Tradition is easy - it is the Catechism of the Catholic Church and it is written with the express purpose of communicating the truth of the Christian faith contained in Scripture to anyone who wishes to read it.
Most of it will be viewed as a redundant interpretation of Scripture, but contained within it are also truths not clearly apprehended by all who read Scripture.
One thing I wont be waiting for is your admission that you lied about copying and pasting print from the Vatican website.

Peace to you

OK so that’s what I was looking for. All tradition is included in the Catechism. Now I can continue studying it and quit looking for all those other things…

 

[Old_Scholar]

Your assertion presupposes that every single person should be able to read the Bible and take away the exact same message and teachings – no disagreement, whatsoever.

As Church history has shown, that is most definitely not the case. There are 10,000+ Protestant denominations out there, all of whom claim sola scriptura, all of whom claim to be teaching the Truth.

How do we know who is right?

I’d really appreciate an answer to this question, as well as an answer to the questions I’ve previously asked.

So I guess you believe all the Catholic priests and bishops believe the same thing as well…Is that an accurate statement? Because I happen to know some believe homosexuals can be priests, some believe women can be priests, some believe men can marry men and on and on…Your argument is inclusive to all.

 

[juliamajor]

How do you know that?

That’s quite a response.Just keep saying how do you know then - nothing has to be answered-.First it says so which is better then about 905 of the bible. None of he Gospels were named “as written by” not Torah either- the assumption of who wrote them was based on tradition oral for sure- written later on. that’s how religions and cultures are passed on .

 

[Canto]

the great Roman Catholic biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, Jerome, all opposed inclusion of the Apocrypha

Jerome may have rejected the deutrocannon but he still transalted them. He following the will of the Church. Some have argued that he later changed his mind. His rejection was becuase they were not in Hebrew if memory serves me correct but the dead sea scrolls would later disproved this idea. Jerome is just one man, however great, just one man. And he ACCEPTED the decision of the Church.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

Don’t confuse them with facts.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems to be that I am the one being bashed here. I haven’t said anything bad against anyone. I am merely trying to have a dialogue.

 

[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?

Hi, OS Guess I should have given you the chapter also as to what Peter says about Paul letters. Sounds like Peters talking to the Church.

2Peter3
15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.
18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Peace,OneNow1

 

[Ignatius]

Don’t confuse . . . . .

Oh good, you’re back my brother. Glad to see you. Well, I do have to admit that I am a bit confused. I am confused about the basis for your stance. Perhaps you can help me understand. Here is what I was asking.

As I pointed out earlier, when Paul referred to the inspiration of Scripture in 2 Tim 3:16 he said “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

Now, you should be aware that at that time, the New Testament had not been written. Paul was therefore referring to the Old Testament. And the Old Testament used where he went (in Greece and the middle East) at the time was the Septuagint version and had been for 200 years before Christ and contains the Deuterocanonical books. So, by 2 Tim 3: 16, Paul supports the Deuterocanon as inspired. This is straight from the pen of the Apostle himself. Also, almost every time that the OT is quoted in the New Testament Greek, the Greek is an quote of the Septuagent Greek text. This pretty much affirms the Deuterocanon as scriptural.

So, having addressed that issue, I ask you, on what basis do you believe the New Testament to be inspired?
Also, how do you determine which writings should be in the New Testament?

And, if you still hold to Sola Scriptura, I would also like to ask you to prove that the Bible was intended to be the sole rule of faith, since the Bible itself makes no such claim—in fact, it denies it (1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Tim. 2:2, 2 Pet. 1:20, 3:15-16).

I look forward to your reply.

As always

Your servant in Christ.

 

[MrS]

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

yep… if you claim to be Christians.

When the Vicar of Christ and the Church proclaim Doctrine it is for all Christians, in all ages, for all time. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. He is the Truth. He is the source of authority which He chose to hand on to His chief steward until His return.

Don’t like it … don’t beleive it??? Too bad.

.

 

[wanner47]

wanner47

I haven’t said my interpretations are infallible, nor do I expect yours to be.

If your interpretation is not infallible, why should I listen to anything you say? You could very easily be wrong.

The Scriptures are infallible and they can be easily interpreted.

I don’t see the word “sufficient” in there. OS, why are you adding words to Scripture?

 

[CentralFLJames]

**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.**

Are you even capable of seeing objective truth or are you too far gone with all this anti-Catholic brainwashing to be your own man and think for yourself?

Scripture does not anywhere say that Mary and Joseph had sex.

As for the matter of Jesus having brothers and sisters I suppose next you will want us to believe you are a long lost brother (or is it sister)?

The learned Church has resolved that the brethren were “cousins”.

The terms brother and sister were used synonymously for cousins as well as for those related through tight social relationships that do not necessarily mean they where direct biological brothers and sisters. The only explicit reference to brothers pertains to: James, Joseph, or Joses, Simon, and Jude.

I suppose now you would also have us believe that the disciple John suddenly became a biological “brother” of Jesus when He spoke from the cross: " woman behold your son"? Please stop the torturous stretches of logic.

Is not His solicitude for her in His dying hour a sign that she would be left with no one whose duty it would be to care for her? And why recommend her to an outsider if she had other sons? Since there was no estrangement between Him and His “brethren”, or between them and Mary, no plausible argument is confirmed by the words with which he recommends her: ide ho uios sou, with the article before uios (son); had there been others sons, ide uios sou, without the article, would have been the proper expression.

The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least two of these “brethren” are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses, are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are not brothers of the Saviour, the others are not. This last argument disposes also of the theory that the “brethren” of the Lord were the sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage (The Orthodox believe Joseph was a widower with sons from a prior marriage).

Other support for Church Teaching is:
It is highly significant that throughout the New Testament Mary appears as the Mother of Jesus and of Jesus alone. This is the more remarkable as she is repeatedly mentioned in connexion with her supposed sons, and, in some cases at least, it would have been quite natural to call them her sons (cf. Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; Acts 1:14). Again, Mary’s annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 2:41) is quite incredible, except on the supposition that she bore no other children besides Jesus. Is it likely that she could have made the journey regularly, at a time when the burden of child-bearing and the care of an increasing number of small children (she would be the mother of at least four other sons and of several daughters, cf Matthew 13:56) would be pressing heavily upon her?

More here: The Brethren of the Lord

James

 

[wanner47]

So I guess you believe all the Catholic priests and bishops believe the same thing as well…Is that an accurate statement? Because I happen to know some believe homosexuals can be priests, some believe women can be priests, some believe men can marry men and on and on…Your argument is inclusive to all.

Old Scholar, please reread my post, because I don’t think you read it the first time. I will bold the important part for you.

our assertion presupposes that every single person should be able to read the Bible and take away the exact same message and teachings – no disagreement, whatsoever.

As Church history has shown, that is most definitely not the case. There are 10,000+ Protestant **denominations **out there, all of whom claim sola scriptura, all of whom claim to be teaching the Truth.

How do we know who is right?

I never said anything about individual denomination members.

I said denominations.

So, tell me, if the leaders of 10,000+ DENOMINATIONS read the Bible, and each denomination teachings DIFFERENT DOCTRINE as a result – regardless of what individual members believe – how do we know who is right? And how can that be possible if, as you say, it’s possible for every single person on Earth to read the Bible and come away with the exact same message?

 

[fbl9]

Acts2;37 upon hearing this they were pierced to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles,“Brethren what shall we do?” going by your logic os the apostles had about 3000 brothers and sisters???

 

[CentralFLJames]

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

It’s quite plain that Paul was not talking about anything Protestant since the only tradition Protestants claim is “sola scriptura” and “protesting” all things Catholic.

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 ?

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

But that’s the beauty JA4 - we don’t have a lot of different traditions since we are all part of the same family and our teaching tradition works! Every Catholic knows the essential Traditions since those are embodied in the liturgy of the mass as well as in the CCC teaching. Is everyone an “A” student - no. Are there some in “the family” who seem a little “out there” now and then - well yes. But we all get along and work with each other and gently point out when somone is getting seriously out of line with teaching.

As for adding new traditions I have already mentioned that. The times change and we “grow” the traditions and expand on them based in more scholarly insight, better translations, new revelations etc. No core teaching or tradition from the early Church has ever been abandoned by the Catholic Church. We may have updated some liturgy and prayers and so on but we still baptise, we still teach the real presence in The Eucharist, we still believe in praying for the dead to help promote them from their time in purgatory etc.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

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!

That is an unfair characterization and is hyperbola. I will not let you misrepresent what I said so that you can frame me in a position I did not take and then demand I explain why I believe something that I don’t.

Why can’t you just admit that your also a traditionalist of the anti-Catholic ilk and it is your tradition to protest and buck anything The Catholic Church teaches? Once you do accept this you will have to show me where the apostles passed this tradition on to you. Can you prove it?

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Why would you believe you can’t understand Scripture yourself? It’s because the church has taught you that you can’t…

Why would you believe that The Church has no authority when scripture says it does? It is because somone hateful has brainwashed you with vile anti-Catholic filth. Are you so far gone that you can no longer see objective truth at all? Stand up on your own two feet and be the man that Christ wants you to be and walk in truth - not in hate, contempt and protest.

James

 

[Canto]

Oral tradition of God not of man is commaned to us.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 is just one of the verses…

“And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.”

It was recieved and continues to be recieved by Catholics from their Church.

Some tradition was written down (read the first paragraph of Luke’s Gospel), but not all of it.

Nowhere in the bible does it say all tradition is contained herein. To prove otherwise would be going to sources outside the bible.

We can survive with just the bible, but it was tradition that gave us the bible and helps us understand it.

I could survive on milk chocolate but white chocolate is yummy too!

Our tradition is not mere Chinese whispers, it is guarded by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26 for e.g.).

Not everything is in the bible (John 21:25 for e.g.).

Scipture does not contadict Tradition
Tradition does not contradict Scipture

The Jews new of God before a word of the OT was written. They heard orally and believed.

Faith comes by hearing said Paul (Romans 10:17).

Instead of asking Catholics “where’s that in the Bible?”
(many things about Mary I have outlined in previous posts)

Maybe (to note another poster) we should ask Protestants
“where’s that not in the bible?”

i.e. for e.g. where does the bible say Mary was not assumpted into to heaven?

If you can prove that the assumption of Mary for e.g. never happened via the scripture then I will not believe it.

If you can’t I will continue to believe it.

 

[Stephen_C]

I don’t get your point. Whether you believe it or not, that Bible you quote from came out of Scared Tradition. So if you a SS believer….how can you state that Mary did not remain a virgin? How can you say she was not assumed up to Heaven? It is not in the Bible. I do not believe in SS because it is false. It was born out of the reformation. All you have is Scared Scripture (A Catholic book with a few OT books missing) We Catholic’s have our Scared Scripture and with Scared Tradition and Christ’s Church (Catholic Church) to guide us to truth. As to the other things you said about Mary…well that is just your own fallible and filtered interpretation.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Arguments from silence carry no weight and that is why the tradition that Mary was assumed cannot be sustained. The Scriptrues are absolutely silent on it. Secondly to say that Mary did not sin is a contradiction with scripture that teaches all men are sinners by their relation to Adam. The only exception is the Lord Jesus.

Do the Scriptures tell us how to be saved?
Do they teach how we are to mature in Christ and live the Christian life?

You claim that “No one walks into a Catholic Church and proclaims himself Catholic”. If this is true, does that mean baptized babies are not catholics?

Is there anything in the Scriptures that a person must “maintain themselves in a state of grace by frequent use of the sacraments”?

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Matthew 16:17-19
And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

It is clear enough that ONLY the Catholic Church has the apostolic succession and the authority to speak of “the other things” not written down or disclosed yet.

On the matter of Baptised children - they did not walk in on their own. They were carried in by their parents or sponsors and are cared for under their custodianship till they are confirmed in the faith. They are Catholics but not yet in full communion with the Church.

There is both tradition and scriptural support for maintaining oneself in a state of grace.

You are simply challenging Jesus by challenging the authority of His Church. Not a very smart thing to do. You really have an almost infantile level of knowledge and perception of scripture and you will never mature beyond that while you hold fixated on a fundamentalist mindset and the protestant tradition for protesting authority and Jesus’ and the apostles commandments.

James