Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[CentralFLJames]

The Scriptures are infallible and they can be easily interpreted.

One’s hermenuetics must be exhaustive or it will fail.
If you expect the Bible to tell you to buy a Chevrolet instead of a Ford, forget it…

Since you are being so literal - where does scripture mention any of these things?

James

 

[pete_29]

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Are the Scripture sufficent and powerful enough to base doctrines on?

Profitable, not sufficient.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Since you are being so literal - where does scripture mention any of these things?

James

Good luck James!

Many of us ask OS and justasking4 for the proof of their infallible interpretations and the chapter and verse supporting their ideas.

They never respond.

They hit and run.

Robert

 

[guanophore]

**The list of what Scripture teaches is easy. It is the Bible. There is nothing taught as Scripture that doesn’t appear there.
**

Great!

Deut 13:15-18
15 you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword. 16 You shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its open square, and burn the city and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God; it shall be a heap for ever, it shall not be built again. 17 None of the devoted things shall cleave to your hand; that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and show you mercy, and have compassion on you, and multiply you, as he swore to your fathers, 18 if you obey the voice of the LORD your God, keeping all his commandments which I command you this day, and doing what is right in the sight of the LORD your God.

In which city shall we begin?

 

[CentralFLJames]

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

No that is an oversimplification. We certainly update some things to account for “today’s times”. For example we use modern lighting and microphones instead of candles and speaking loudly ( judging by the protestant TV evangelists the latter tradtion of shouting seems to be a dearly held tradition among protestants). We have updated the prayers to use modern English words and to fill in newer revelation (for example The Creed and the double procession of the Holy Spirit proceeding from Father to Son and Son to Father). We no longer require that sinners do penance for long periods of time outside of church asking the faithful for their prayers and understanding. We instead encourage them to use their time in productive private penance and to study more, pray more and develop their spiritual maturity rather than place themselves in public humility. We think that is more dignified to the “person” and more pleasing to God. But in the early Church one could be banished from communion with fellow Christians for fairly minor offenses.

We have even started new traditions like letting the laity do volunteer “apologetic” work on the Internet so heretics and anti-catholics can take pot shots at the Church. The idea is is to each the faith and perhaps even to prove that we can love and work with even our worst enemies in the hopes that they will come into full communion with The Church before its too late and they suffer eternal damnation. Do you object to the new tradition or just to the free company?

OS, you seem to have a lot of sentimental heart ache with the Catholic Church changing tradition. Are you really just sentimental and really missing some of the “old school” traditions and want them back? Let me know which traditions you miss most.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

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

Are you finally admiting that you are a Protestant and complaining in behalf of the full legion of Protestants sects?
It was you who asked why Catholics do not accept Sola Scripture. Don’t you think its fair to point out the obvious fact that its defective at face value by the evidence of the 10’s of thousands of different Protesant sects who all claim to believe the same thing?
James

 

[guanophore]

Do you know if the Septuagint of the 1st century contained the Deutrocanical books?

Yes, this is why they are accepted by the Church.

The Jews themselves did not accept them as being inspired.

Partly because Jesus used them, and they pointed to Him, and contained prophesies which He fulfilled.

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

Yes, in fact, most of them are.

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.

I notice that you left out of this list that it was used by Jesus and the Apostles.

You also left out whether it was always accepted by the Church as inspired. I wonder why you left these out?

 

[guanophore]

** That’s a really good question. Tell my why Catholics don’t believe Jesus had brothers and sisters when the Scriptures say He did. **

We interpret the scriptures according to Apostolic Tradition, and we understand that those who knew Jesus and Mary personally to teach that He was an only child.

** Tell me why Catholics say Mary remained a virgin when the Scriptures say Joseph “knew” his wife. **

The scriptures do not say this. As a matter of fact, they say the opposite. “he knew NOT 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. **

We understand what the Bible says according to the Traditions handed down to us by those who wrote it.

** All made up. **

God certainly has the right to “make up” whatever He desires! He “made up” all of creation as we know it, including His own mother! If He decides she should be in heaven with Him, then I think it is His perogative!

** Tell me why Catholics believe in the primacy of the pope while Scripture says different…**

Scripture is quite clear on the primacy of Peter.

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

The point I am getting is that the writing of Old Scholar reflects a rampant anti-Catholic bigotry.

 

[guanophore]

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.

If you accept the authority of the NT and early church to believe and write these, then why do you reject the other Teachings that they handed down?

 

[guanophore]

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

Paul considered Christianity to be the fulfillment of Judaism. His traditions emanated from the Fathers, and contained all that was taught to him from childhood, just as he writes about Timothy.

Acts 26:5
5 They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee.

Paul then received Christian Tradition from the Church, and from Christ Himself, and faithfully passed on these instructions about how to live the Christian life, including how the Sacred Writings should be understood.

Are you saying that no one knows exactly what the Traditions are in your church if you can’t point explicitedly to it?

No. That is what YOU are saying!

It would seem then that catholics could have different Traditions if you a catholic doesn’t know explicitedly what they are. Is this correct ?

Only if you are confusing customs with Sacred Tradition.

Catholics may be as ignorant of Sacred Tradition as they may be of Scripture. Their ignorance of Divine Revelation does not subtract from the importance or inerrancy of it.

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

Since I don’t think there are any, it is not possible for me to answer this. Maybe you could answer it better, since you seem to think they exist?

 

[guanophore]

**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. **

It has nothing to do with being naive or funny. None of us can find the word “limbo” in there!

 

[epostle]

Old Scholar is employing a common anti-Catholic tactic that is employed in many forums. This is done by constantly changing the topic, and inserting red-herring insults in almost every post. This keeps Catholics running in the same circle after the same scared rabbit. It always degernates with the anti-Catholic ranting about Mary and purgatory, regardless of the topic.

This is not a thread, it is a bar room brawl with Mr. Bully dominating it with insults and lies.

For one thing, Old Scholar invents the lie, or has fallen for the lie, that we Catholics cannot interpret scripture for ourselves. He has the typical ignorant anti-Catholic view that the Church is a dominating dictator. Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible and interpret it for ourselves, we just can’t interpret it apart from the Church the same way Arius, Nestorius, and every other heretic did. The Church uses about 25 different approaches to interpreting scripture, but Old Scholar thinks the reformist methodolgy, born from a world-view of 16th century Nominalism and other moderinst heresies, is a better idea.

Old Scholar proves the hypocracy of his own system: anyone can have an opinion of what the Bible teaches, but a Catholic opinion has no validity. Anybody has a right to interpret the Bible for themsleves, but not even the Pope himself has any right to do so. Old Schoar is blind to the absurdity.

 

[Canto]

Old Scholar proves the hypocracy of his own system: anyone can have an opinion of what the Bible teaches, but a Catholic opinion has no validity. Anybody has a right to interpret the Bible for themsleves, but not even the Pope himself has any right to do so. Old Schoar is blind to the absurdity.

This is a good point.
We say for e.g. Peter was the first Pope, rock, keys, b+l etc
Protestants say we have the wrong interpretation of the Bible
Who’s write and who is wrong?
The nearly 2 millenial teaching and history of the Church or some guy?

 

[sodak]

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…

You say that you want to open a dialog, yet all I see are pot shots.

1. Sacred Tradition, which is in the Catechism, and we believe, love, and follow, is with a capital T. Other traditions of men, with a lower case t. It is highly insulting to use the lowercase when you know good and well that it should be uppercase.
2. Telling Justasking4 not to confuse us with the facts.

That’s 2 examples after reading one page of this thread. It’s pretty clear that you are not trying to understand our faith. This is a Catholic forum, if you don’t want to show courtesy, then leave and don’t come back.

I’ve been perusing some of the threads on the Orthodox forum, and the conversations between Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, and other Catholics are wonderful, like intelligent adults discussing many interesting ideas. This forum, with all of the bigoted anti-Catholics, seems like children on a schoolyard. You might call yourself “old scholar”, but you come across as anything but.

 

[sodak]

Martin Luther was telling the truth. The Catholic Church possessed most of the Bibles and kept them from the general public for hundreds of years and forbade them from reading it. In fact, had it not been for the invention of the printing press, we would still be in the dark. When Bibles could be mass produced, the common man could not be kept from it and when people like Martin Luther began to be able to read it, the truth started coming out and is still coming out.

This is a bald faced lie. Catholic churches had Bibles chained to the churches so that anyone could come in and read them. The chains were to prevent theft. There were at least 9 German translations in existence before Luther changed the Bible to correspond to his personal beliefs.

The Catholic church even gives indulgences (horror of horrors) to people who read the Bible. Why would they do that if it were some big secret?

 

[sodak]

The Trinity is covered quite well in scripture.

Prove it.

 

[fellowChristian]

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.

John 20:31
31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

**They were written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ,the Son of God.
Not for us to worship the book they went in. **

John 20:30

30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, **which are not recorded **in this book.

John 21:25

25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

**not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology. **

 

[fellowChristian]

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

I checked out your link.Did you read the “Home Page”? It says…

"Please note that most of my theology writings are speculative, rather than dogmatic.

Also, many of the ideas expressed on this site are a matter of pious disagreement among faithful Catholics. "

and the “Limbo” page you link to was written by
by Ronald L. Conte Jr.

Not the Catholic Church Herself.

 

[fellowChristian]

And before you attack the viginity of Mary the mother of our Lord…

Did you ever notice…

John 6:42
They were saying, " Is not this Jesus, **the son **of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ’ I have come down out of heaven’?"

John 1:45
Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote–Jesus of Nazareth, **the son **of Joseph.”

Luke 3:23
Genealogy of Jesus ] When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,

Not “a son of Joseph” no it says “the son of Joseph”!

Don’t forget

Ezekiel 44:2:

And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut

This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY in Scripture
scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-IV

By the way

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: **Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary. **

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

 

[fellowChristian]

Here is a link that has quotes from Martin Luther on the mother of our Lord.

davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm

**Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. **

{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

**Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. **

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

**A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . . **

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }