Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[guanophore]

Because it does not line up with the Scriptures.

It may not line up with your personal interpretation of the scriptures. Surely you are aware that there are about as many different ways to interpret them as there are people?

 

[epostle]

Just4asking:

Do you believe that the Scriptures are inerrant and inspired?

That is a Catholic belief the reformers highjacked and reduced “inerrancy and inspiration” to human opinion because they felt the Holy Spirit was not doing his job. When you remove the Bible from the Church, it is no longer inspired and inerrant, as thousands of opposing interpretations prove. You uphold chaos over order.

Are the Scriptures themselves adequate or strong enough for doctrines to be based on?

First, this so called absolute infallible doctrine that all doctrine must be found in scripture…IS NOT IN SCRIPTURE!!! And you have dodged the point. Second, there is no Catholic doctrine that cannot be directly or indirectly inferred from Scripture. Just because a doctrine is not explicit in scripture does not mean it is contrary or violates scripture.

What do you think of this quote from Basil of Caesaria:
"We ought to carefully to examine whether the doctrine offered to us is conformable to Scripture, and if not, to reject it. Nothing must be added to the inspired words of God; all that is outside Scripture is not of faith, but is sin. (Prolegomena, 2, Work 3, Ascetic (iii) )

This man certainly supports sola scriptura.

Then he must consistently support sola scriptura if this quote out of context is to be of any use to you.

Basil of Caesaria *“Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or enjoined which are preserved in the Church, some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have delivered to us in a mystery by the apostles by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force” *(On the Holy Spirit, 27).
Basil of Caesaria *“In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form with the Spirit' has no written authority, we maintain that if there is not another instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received [as authoritative]. But if the great number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without [the] written authority [of Scripture], then, in company with many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide by the unwritten traditions. *'I praise you,' it is said [by Paul in 1 Cor. 11:1] that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I handed them on to you,’ and `Hold fast to the traditions that you were taught whether by an oral statement or by a letter of ours’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us [under consideration], which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time” (On the Holy Spirit, 71).

just4asking, your Basil argument belongs in the soup.
Such talk hardly fits with the principle that Scripture is formally sufficient for all matters of Christian doctrine. This type of appeal to a body of unwritten apostolic Tradition within the Church as being authoritative is frequent in Basil’s writings.

In addition, quotes from Church Fathers are not read the same way a sola scripturist reads the Bible, which is frozen in 16th century Nominalism. Catholics don’t treat the Bible like a SSist treats a phone book, and the same goes for the ECF’s. Furthermore, Catholics are not bound by every line ever written by an ECF.

I challenge OS, or anyone else, to demonstrate for me how, where, or when sola scriptura was used that resulted in greater unity among Protestants.

Do all orthodox protestants believe:
1- Christ is God?
2- died for the sins of the world?
3- that ministers can marry?

What truths Protestants have (and there are a lot of truths) are borrowed wholesale from the Catholic Church, the rest is human opinion. None of these items answers the question, because sola scriptura is a divisive invention.

Not so. Just because an authority claims something to be true does not make it so.
In this case there is no evidence from the from the first century. It fails not only on biblical grounds (see above) but also on historical grounds…

We are talking about a divinely appointed authority run by humans, you are talking about a mere human authority. Since you refuse to believe the Church is an extension of the Incarnation (united by the Eucharist) you have to redefine the Incarnation itself. Sound Mariology means sound Christology. You reject sound Mariology and that is why you have Nestorian leanings.

 

[guanophore]

So we agree then that the traditions he is referring then are not many of the traditions that the catholic church teaches today?

On the contrary, the Catholic Church is built upon the belief, practice, and teaching of Jesus, a devout Jew. The Mass is a reflection of the synagogue service that Jesus and His apostles participated in faithfully. Eucharist is celebrated according to the pattern of the Passover meal from which it was born.

What are some examples of the “Christian Tradition from the Church” that you are referring to here? "

“Let nothing be done without the Bishop”.

Can you give me an example of each?

A custom would be that priests of the Latin Rite are taken from those who are called to a life of Celibacy.

A Sacred Tradition would be that Mary was ever virgin.

What would a catholic need to do to become knowledgeable of the Sacred Tradiitons? What source or sources would he need to consult to know?

I would expect that one would have to begin by accepting that there is such a thing as sacred tradition. If one believes intractibly as you do that there are no teachings of Jesus outside scripture, and that all the Sacred Traditions are actually “speculations of men”, I do not think a person would get very far learning about them.

Is it not true that the catholic church claims all its Sacred Traditions are handed down from the apostles? If this is the case then the only source for the apostles teachings is the Scriptures.

No, ja4, the only source for Apostolic Teaching is NOT the scriptures. This is an error.

If its not in Scripture then you can’t have a Sacred Tradition that is not in Scripture. For example since the assumption of Mary was never taught by the apostles its not an apostolic tradition. It would not be a Sacred Tradition.

I know this is hard for you to grasp, ja4, but the bulk of the NT was written prior to Mary’s death, and that is why it is not mentioned there. Not only that, you have no way of knowing the content of the Teachings, since you reject that they exist!

 

[Old_Scholar]

How can you say these things when you’ve been shown that they are false?

Sorry but none of those things have been shown to be false. Oh they have been declared false but never any Scripture to back up the declarations.

 

[epostle]

On the contrary, the Catholic Church is built upon the belief, practice, and teaching of Jesus, a devout Jew. The Mass is a reflection of the synagogue service that Jesus and His apostles participated in faithfully. Eucharist is celebrated according to the pattern of the Passover meal from which it was born.

Luther hated the Jews, and he and his cohorts removed any and all resemblances of our Jewish heritage when they reinvented Christianity.

 

[guanophore]

It doesn’t. Now what else is inspired-inerrant besides the Scriptures? What else carries the authority of the God breathed Scriptures?

Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” John 20:20-23

Well, let’s see. The Father sent Jesus with “all authority”. He then breathes upon the Apostles and sends them with “all authority”.

So, do you deny that Jesus is God, so that this is not "God-Breathed? Or, do you deny that the Apostles are the foundation of the Church?

Or maybe you deny that the HS is God, and is able to preserve the Church from error?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” John 20:20-23

Well, let’s see. The Father sent Jesus with “all authority”. He then breathes upon the Apostles and sends them with “all authority”.

So, do you deny that Jesus is God, so that this is not "God-Breathed? Or, do you deny that the Apostles are the foundation of the Church?

Or maybe you deny that the HS is God, and is able to preserve the Church from error?

What you say is true except you forget that the apostles all died and with them died the authority given them by Christ. They could appoint bishops but the bishops never had the authority to perform miracles or any of the things the apostles could do because the apostles could not pass on that authority.

The apostles could even raise the dead but that all died with them.

And God certainly has kept His church from error but He did not keep the ones who strayed from His written word. Unfortunately they have made their own “traditions,” and created purely non-scriptural doctrines. The early church fathers would “turn over” in their graves to see what has happened to their church.

 

[guanophore]

These questions are off topic and already dealt with numerous times in other threads.

One of ja4’s favorite tactics is cluster bombing. After that, thread derailment is usually easy.

These questions are not off topic. They fit the title of this thread very well.

The question was why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura? The early church fathers believed Scripture held all truth, why don’t Catholics of today? When did you stop accepting Scripture as the truth and the only truth?

Would Irenæus believe the assumption of Mary if he couldn’t prove it by Scripture? I can answer that one for you—No!

No, the Church Fathers (NONE) believed scripture held all truth. We do not believe that today because we embrace what was passed on to us through the Sacred Tradition in the 'Apostolic Succession.

A question like this is like saying “when did you stop beating your wife”. It is based on a faulty premise.

Iranaeus believed what was handed on to him about all the Sacred Teachings, and understood how these are seen in scripture. Sola Scripturists, having rejected the Sacred Tradition, interpret scriputre in a vaccum, lacking context, and therefore, do not understand what the writers meant.

 

[guanophore]

How would they teach something that never happened? Keep in mind there is not even a hint from the NT she was assumed.

Finally you are starting to GET it, ja4!!! They could not document something in the NT that had not happened yet! :extrahappy:

 

[guanophore]

These questions are not off topic. They fit the title of this thread very well.

The question was why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura? The early church fathers believed Scripture held all truth, why don’t Catholics of today? When did you stop accepting Scripture as the truth and the only truth?

Would Irenæus believe the assumption of Mary if he couldn’t prove it by Scripture? I can answer that one for you—No!

What you say is true except you forget that the apostles all died and with them died the authority given them by Christ. They could appoint bishops but the bishops never had the authority to perform miracles or any of the things the apostles could do because the apostles could not pass on that authority.

I wonder where you get this conception of history? If Apostolic power and authority were reallly passed, would you have to give up protesting?

The Bishops did, and do, have apostolic authority. This may also come as a shock to you, but God still does work miracles through His people.

The apostles could even raise the dead but that all died with them.

I recognize this heresy from the Southern Baptist Convention in which I sojourned. There, I was taught that “when the perfect has come tongues will cease”. This teaching that the formulation of the canon was “perfection” and that the gifts of the HS are no longer needed was demonstrated to me to be false.

And God certainly has kept His church from error but He did not keep the ones who strayed from His written word. Unfortunately they have made their own “traditions,” and created purely non-scriptural doctrines. The early church fathers would “turn over” in their graves to see what has happened to their church.

At least we can agree on these points!

 

[guanophore]

as far as i am concerned the sola scriptures people can believe in whatever they want. sola scriptures. sola fide. and whatevermore. these are pointless arguments. those outside the True Church can not ever understand this Church and these arguments will never ever make them understand.

“Evangelize, if necessary use words.”

Old Scholar and justasking4 are hot here to understand. They have already made up their minds that the Catholic Church has fallen into error. They are here on the forum to show us where we have fallen away from the true faith, and to lead us back to biblical truth.

 

[fellowChristian]

Ok. Keep in mind that the Gospels and other writtings from the Apostles were finished before Mary was assumed.

(Assumed = to be taken by God)

Now are you saying that it is impossible for God to take someone into heaven?

Because you have to remember…

Genesis 5:24

Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.

Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

**Hebrews 11:5 **

By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; AND HE WAS NOT FOUND BECAUSE GOD TOOK HIM UP; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God.

and what about…

** 2 Kings 2:11-12:**

11And as they went on, walking and talking together, behold a fiery chariot, and fiery horses parted them both asunder: and Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

12And Eliseus saw him, and cried: My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the driver thereof. **And he saw him no more**: and he took hold of his own garments, and rent them in two pieces.

Elijah / Elias was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

1 Maccabees 2:58:

Elias, while he was full of zeal for the law, was taken up into heaven.

Psalm 132:8

8Arise, O LORD, to Your resting place,
     You **and the ark **of Your strength.

**2 Thessalonians 2:15 **

15So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether **by word of mouth **or by letter from us

So you see one of the “traditions” we were taught by “mouth” was the Assumption of Mary the mother of our Lord.

Nothing is impossible for God

 

[Canto]

Protestants may claim that many Catholic things are not biblical (though they are) but we have Tradition. We don’t believe sola scriptura so in a sense the “where’s that in the bible” sort of qustions are irrelevant.

I note though that Sola Scripture and Sola Fide are found nowhere in the bible. In fact the only place the word “faith alone” is found is in a verse by James that condems it. To throw away tradition would be like kicking Saint Paul in the pants.

All though I will always defend the Church, the EVER virgin Mary etc the question was asked “Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?” and it has been answerd. Don’t agree well fine, God gave us free will.

John 15:7 And when there was made a great disputation, Peter rising up said to them, Men brethren, you know that of old days God among us chose, that **by my mouth **the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe.

Jer. 25:3,7 "For twenty-three years… the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again…‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord…

1 Thessalonians 2:13 “When you **received the word **of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God”

1 Titus 3 But has manifested in due times his word in preaching, which is committed to me according to the precept of our Saviour God: - Here we see it is committed to him not by a book but by the oral word

I Corinthians 15: “11. For whether I, or they, so we preach, and so you have believed.”

1 Timothy 6:20 "My dear Timothy, take great care of all that has been entrusted to you” – i.e. tradition

2 Timothy 1:13-14 “Keep as your pattern the sound teaching you have **heard **from me, in the faith and love that are in Jesus Christ // You have been trusted to look after something precious; guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us” - i.e. guard Tradition

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Have thou a form of sound words, which thou hast** heard **of me in faith and in the love in Christ JESUS. Keep the good depositum by the Holy Spirit, which dwelleth in us. - i.e. Tradition

Jer:25:8 Therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts: Because you have not heard my words:

 

[fellowChristian]

“[T]hey who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand.”
** Hilary of Poitiers, On Matthew, Homily 13:1 (A.D. 355). **

“But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.”
Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).

“It is the church which perfect truth perfects. The church of believers is great, and its bosom most ample; it embraces the fullness of the two Testaments.”
Ephraem, Against Heresies (ante A.D. 373).

“For they [heretics] do not teach as the church does; their message does no accord with the truth.”
**Epiphanius, Panarion, 47 (A.D. 377). **

“Wherefore all other generations are strangers to truth; all the generations of heretics hold not the truth: the church alone, with pious affection, is in possession of the truth.”
**Ambrose, Commentary of Psalm 118,19 (A.D. 388). **

“They teach what they themselves have learnt from their predecessors. They have received those rites which they explain from the Church’s tradition. They preach only ‘the dogmas of the Church’”
**John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction (A.D. 389). **

" ‘So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.’ Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther."
**John Chrysostom, Homily on 2nd Thessalonians, 4:2 (A.D. 404). **

“My resolution is, to read the ancients, to try everything, to hold fast what is good, and not to recede from the faith of the Catholic Church.”
**Jerome, To Minervius & Alexander, Epistle 119 (A.D. 406). **

“But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church.”
**Augustine, On the Trinity, 4,6:10 (A.D. 416). **

“[H]old fast the faith in simplicity of mind; establishing the tradition of the church as a foundation, in the inmost recesses of thy heart, hold the doctrines which are well-pleasing unto God.”
**Cyril of Alexandria, Festal Letters, Homily 8 (A.D. 442). **

 

[fellowChristian]

So if you accept “Sola Scriptura” and you read these two verses,what then do you do?

2 Peter 1:20
But know this first of all, that **no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, **

2 Peter 3:16
as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the **untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. **

How can you believe in “Sola Scriptura” when Scripture tells you

You are not allowed to interpret on your own because you might “distort” it.

 

[savedsinner]

What you say is true except you forget that the apostles all died and with them died the authority given them by Christ. They could appoint bishops but the bishops never had the authority to perform miracles or any of the things the apostles could do because the apostles could not pass on that authority.
.

How do you know this authority passed away with the death of the last Apostle?

Are you using a scripture passage to support this, or maybe an early church document that states this to be a fact?

 

[utunumsint]

How do you know this authority passed away with the death of the last Apostle?

Are you using a scripture passage to support this, or maybe an early church document that states this to be a fact?

Gasp! A tradition of men!!! :bigyikes:



Cheers,
Ut

 

[IronHammer]

Is it not true that the catholic church claims all its Sacred Traditions are handed down from the apostles? If this is the case then the only source for the apostles teachings is the Scriptures. If its not in Scripture then you can’t have a Sacred Tradition that is not in Scripture. For example since the assumption of Mary was never taught by the apostles its not an apostolic tradition. It would not be a Sacred Tradition.

You have it backwards. Sacred Scripture flows from Sacred Tradition. We know that Mary was assumed into Heaven because Sacred Tradition tells us this. It doesn’t have to be in Scripture, it just can’t be contradicted by Scripture. This is an important distinction.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Scholar
What you say is true except you forget that the apostles all died and with them died the authority given them by Christ. They could appoint bishops but the bishops never had the authority to perform miracles or any of the things the apostles could do because the apostles could not pass on that authority.
.

So you said.
How do you explain the evangelical churches doing all those miracles they claim they do? speak on tongues and so on…?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Is it not true that the catholic church claims all its Sacred Traditions are handed down from the apostles? If this is the case then the only source for the apostles teachings is the Scriptures. If its not in Scripture then you can’t have a Sacred Tradition that is not in Scripture. For example since the assumption of Mary was never taught by the apostles its not an apostolic tradition. It would not be a Sacred Tradition.

if this is true, then how could you ever understand the church of the time? how could you know what they did? so you say they had to write everything down. if they did not, then it is not true. this is and American mentality. if it is not in writing then it must not be true. it was not like that back then. they could not have written everything it would be impossible.

Judge Judy says: " if it doesnt make sense then it must not be true." she is jewish.

it is presunptious to think that God would make so easy for us to understand His plans.

the Apostles said to jesus: " Master why do you speak in Parables? because to you was given the right to know these things, but not them.

See! the understanding of God’s word was not for everyone to understand. only to those whom he chooses.

If all ended with the death of the last apostle, so the church ceased to exist to? and then was picked up againg by Martin Luther and Calvin after 1500s later? this is non cense. total lack of understand.

“]” The Church is the Pillar and Bullwark of all truth." according to the Bible. which church?

“This Curch rules from one City and reigns into all nations.”