Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[guanophore]

Even though Limbo was not an offical doctrine of the catholic church did the church ever say to its priests and leaders not to talk about it? Did not priests use this as a comfort to those that lost infants in death?

Did not the church give the impression to its people that it was indeed true?

I suppose much in the same way that you would use your speculation that God receives infants into heaven. Limbo was never a Teaching of the Church, although I am sure you are right, there are those who gave the impression that it was. Just as now, people give the impression that Sola Scriptura is true.

Where in Scripture is there any specific reference to the “chair of Peter”?

Right next to where it tells us the secret hiding place of the Keys of David.

She had other children. See Matthew 13:55-56 for one of many examples of them.

Just a reminder, ja4, the CAF is not a venue for you to promulgate non or anti-Catholic teachings. If you wish to pander your New Gospel, please open your own forum.

I can see why catholics cannot accept or believe in sola scriptura since it would mean so many doctrines and traditions would have to be rejected.

You are welcome to reject them, ja4, because you reject the Sacred Traditions handed down from the Apostles. However, the purpose of this forum is to answer questions about Catholic belief, not to give you an outlet for your anti-Catholic hostilities.

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

No. Were you there?

 

[guanophore]

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.

This is important to those only who reject the Authority of the Church to determine what is inspired, and what is not. There were the same kinds of disagreements and incomplete canons when the Bible that you now use was formed. Luther removed some of the books, but for the most part, what you have was collected and ratified by the Church. This is the Body that is authorized to make such a determination.

 

[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.

Yes, just as She believed it was essential to hold fast to theTraditions that were delivered by the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

You have been taught you cannot intrepret Scripture but Scripture says otherwise:

This constitutes bearing false witness against your neighbor, OS, since you know quite well this is not what Catholics are taught. If you were taugh this when you were little,then someone made a mistake. I am sorry that you were injured by a Catholic, but don’t use that as an excuse to continue pandering hostility and wrongdoing! It only makes you a participant in other peoples sins.

 

[Tomster]

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?

Fire away!

 

[Tomster]

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?

In all fairness, Old Scholar, will it be necessary for me to list all of the variations in beliefs within Protestantism?

 

[Tomster]

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?

BTW Old Scholar, in regards to your question - ASKED AND ANSWERED!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3262736#post3262736.

Please re-read it.

 

[Lampo]

You’re not being true to yourself. You can’t possibly believe the Scriptures teach Mary’s perpetual virginity or immaculate conception or assumption. To say you can believe that from Scripture is disingenuous.

What kind of answer to my questions to you is that?

 

[Tomster]

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

What do Protestants believe? That is a very good question. It depends on which Protestant sect we are talking about. If we should define Protestantism by a short formula , we might call it subjective Christianity, whose positive contents are derived from Catholicism and whose radical error is a denial that faith belongs essentially to the intellect.

All that we know of Protestant culture points to its heavy emphasis on the subjective side of the Christian religion. Different churches had different orientations, but the general trend was the same.

 

[Lampo]

Mk 6:3 says, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses, and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?” We need to realize a few things here about these “brothers and sisters”: #1, there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic - the words that the Jews used in all those instances were “brother” or “sister”. An example of this can be seen in Gen 14:14, where Lot, who was Abraham’s nephew, is called his brother.

Another point to consider. If Jesus had had any brothers, if Mary had had any other sons, would the last thing that Jesus did on earth be to grievously offend his surviving brothers? In Jn 19:26-27, right before Jesus dies, it says that Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to the beloved disciple, John. If Mary had had any other sons, it would have been an incredible slap in the face to them that the Apostle John was entrusted with the care of their mother!

Also, we see from Mt. 27:55-56, that the James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6 as the “brothers” of Jesus, are actually the sons of another Mary. And, one other passage to consider is Acts 1:14-15, “[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers…the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty.” A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the “brothers” of Jesus. Let’s see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus’ mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let’s say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument’s sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus’ brothers at about 80 or 90! Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children? She would have been in perpetual labor! No, Scripture does not contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the “brothers” of Jesus, when Scripture is properly interpreted in context.

biblechristiansociety.com/2min_apologetics.php?id=14

 

[Kay_Cee]

You have some books written by God only knows who, but they have never claimed inspiration and certainly don’t fit the criteria to be “God-breathed.” You can’t call them Scripture.

You are the one who claims certain books “don’t fit the criterea to be ‘God-breathed’”. I merely asked, since you are sola scriptura, to point out where the Bible shows what, exactly, is "the criterea to be ‘God-breathed.’.

Old Scholar, you are the one who made these claims. The burden of proof is on YOU, not me.

I will not merely take your word for it, nor is it up to me to research it. You made the claims, including the claim that the answer is in the Bible, so you must have some idea where it is, if it’s really there.

Stop giving me nothing more than a cop out. Start giving me some answers.

 

[CentralFLJames]

You are the one who claims certain books “don’t fit the criterea to be ‘God-breathed’”. I merely asked, since you are sola scriptura, to point out where the Bible shows what, exactly, is "the criterea to be ‘God-breathed.’.

Old Scholar, you are the one who made these claims. The burden of proof is on YOU, not me.

I will not merely take your word for it, nor is it up to me to research it. You made the claims, including the claim that the answer is in the Bible, so you must have some idea where it is, if it’s really there.

Stop giving me nothing more than a cop out. Start giving me some answers.

The problem with Old Scholar is that he imagines himself like “the perpetual student” and thinks he can study himself into heaven as a justifying work. He rejects that the Catholic Church has the keys to heaven and instead thinks that by being studious he can find the secret keys for himself and is not obliged to share them with anyone else who did not earn it. What he does not yet realize is that not only is he NOT in possession to the keys of heaven but he has locked himself into the perpetual jail of his own council. He imagines in his solitary confinement that that beating at his cell door is the Catholic Church trying to break in to rob him of his private safety. He simply can’t imagine that its the Catholic Church knocking at his cell door to let him outside to smell the fresh air.

Just as there are many who are content to live in the fantasy of their own private interpretations those in hell would never think to leave the familiarity of home even if the gates were suddenly opened and freedom was offered.

James

 

[Tomster]

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.

epostle,

Exactly!

A salvation which is secured by believing that we are saved, and a Bible interpreted to suit its reader, has led Protestants to regard even Protestant churches as irrelevant to salvation, although they continue to be gathering places for hearing the Word, Sunday school classes, Bible study, and the all-important fellowship.

Why all important? The severance from and repudiation of the Church breeds the terrifying, subterranean loneliness which characterizes the world of the Protestant. He inhabits a desolate terrain. Each soul is isolated from every other. Each believer holds a set of beliefs differing in particulars from every other set of beliefs held by every other believer even in the same sect, and often differing even from that which he believed only yesterday. Held, in the main, only by strong social ties, but dissatisfied inside, he may go to this denomination this week, and to that next week, or perhaps nowhere, until, maybe next year, when he hears of some new doctrine, some new preacher. He is unable to conceive of the unchanging nature of Catholicism, because it is outside his experience. He can never feel that he is part of something larger than himself, because inexorable Protestant imperatives ensure that there is NOTHING LARGER THAN HIMSELF.

The Protestant accepts many divinely revealed truths, but those tenets which identify him as a Protestant are the denials of Revelation originating with the Protestant Reformation. His most cherished beliefs are disguised negatives: “faith alone” is a denial of everything else; “I am saved,” its formal expression. He establishes contact with his fellow believers not through subscribing to a creed of apostolic origin, or joining them in a worship service prescribed by Christ, in use by the apostles before the Bible was written. He joins with them through the recitation of the negatives of his oral tradition - the list of what he does not believe - and reiteration of Luther’s “I am saved.”

 

[Tomster]

The problem with Old Scholar is that he imagines himself like “the perpetual student” and thinks he can study himself into heaven as a justifying work. He rejects that the Catholic Church has the keys to heaven and instead thinks that by being studious he can find the secret keys for himself and is not obliged to share them with anyone else who did not earn it. What he does not yet realize is that not only is he NOT in possession to the keys of heaven but he has locked himself into the perpetual jail of his own council. He imagines in his solitary confinement that that beating at his cell door is the Catholic Church trying to break in to rob him of his private safety. He simply can’t imagine that its the Catholic Church knocking at his cell door to let him outside to smell the fresh air.

Just as there are many who are content to live in the fantasy of their own private interpretations those in hell would never think to leave the familiarity of home even if the gates were suddenly opened and freedom was offered.

James

James,

Sounds like a bad case of Gnosticism.

 

[Tomster]

You are the one who claims certain books “don’t fit the criterea to be ‘God-breathed’”. I merely asked, since you are sola scriptura, to point out where the Bible shows what, exactly, is "the criterea to be ‘God-breathed.’.

Old Scholar, you are the one who made these claims. The burden of proof is on YOU, not me.

I will not merely take your word for it, nor is it up to me to research it. You made the claims, including the claim that the answer is in the Bible, so you must have some idea where it is, if it’s really there.

Stop giving me nothing more than a cop out. Start giving me some answers.

Some infallible ANSWERS maybe?

 

[CentralFLJames]

James,

Sounds like a bad case of Gnosticism.

I think so. Gnosticism is the doctrine of salvation by knowledge.

Now that I think we have properly named the demon does anyone think we have enough posting room remaining in the thread to exorcise it before the thread auto-locks at 1000 posts?

James

 

[Tomster]

I think so. Gnosticism is the doctrine of salvation by knowledge.

Now that I think we have properly named the demon does anyone think we have enough posting room remaining in the thread to exorcise it before the thread auto-locks at 1000 posts?

James

Well, 191 posts to go? Maybe.

 

[Lampo]

You’re not being true to yourself. You can’t possibly believe the Scriptures teach Mary’s perpetual virginity or immaculate conception or assumption. To say you can believe that from Scripture is disingenuous.

So now you are a soothsayer? On what authority are you able to demand that I “can’t possibly believe the Scriptures teach Mary’s Perpetual Virginity or Immaculate Conception or Assumption”? In fact, I absolutely do believe that Scripture combined with Tradition and the Magesterium teaches all three. So, I’ll ask again: What makes my interpretation inferior to yours? Don’t you believe as Christians we all have the right to interpret the Bible for ourselves as long as we feel guided by the Holy Spirit? Furthermore, since you stated you are not infallible, could you be wrong on 100% of every passage you have interpreted yourself?

Since you and I disagree on SO MUCH of Scripture, is there a place that is the pillar and bullwark of truth that provides the answer?

 

[Newbie2]

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

In other words, OS doesn’t have a valid answer.

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…

Dude. Get with it. There’s a difference between Big T Tradition and Little t tradition. You keep mixing them up or ignoring the difference…and yes, it makes a difference if you truly are interested in a dialogue.

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.

Don’t you have the capability of recognizing a MSWord feature? Pitiful.

:ehh:

Every one of OS’s comments have eluded to “Show me where that is in Scripture” otherwise it’s rejected. Like I’ve said before, either one accepts Tradition (Big T, OS) or not. OS doesn’t.

Really, is there anything to dialogue about, OS? You’ve asked the question, got your answer, but reject it.

Seems to me at this point it’s just rehashing the same old “It’s not in Scripture, blah, blah, blah”.

Seriously, is there something that’s not been addressed? (Addressed meaning giving the Catholic position, in response to your OP, not giving the Protestant answers as Catholic, which seems to be what you’re looking for).

If there is something, what is it? If not, further discussion, IMHO, is moot.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Fire away!

Well let’s discuss the dogma of salvation only in the Roman Catholic Church.

That has been taught for hundreds and hundreds of years but now has been changed.

Your comments?