Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[wanner47]

OS – care to respond to my last post, as well as the questions you ignored from the one before that?

 

[Pwrlftr]

This is how you make the Bible “quite clear”.

Matthew 27:5 Judas went away and hung himself,
Luke 10:37 “Go and do likewise.”

You gotta love the charity being shown by the Catholics on this forum.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Because it mentions her children for example in Matthew 13:55-56 1:19.

dwhtxsports
With all due respect, for someone who follows sola scriptura, how can you make a statement like the above? Nowhere in scripture does is there any mention of Mary having other children other than when Jesus told John to behold his mother at the Cross. If you are going to have any credibility at all in this argument on sola scriptura, you really should not add ANYTHING to Scripture.

Huh? Look at this reference in Matthew 13:55-56 again. With just this text: to whom are the mother of His brothers and sisters that are mentioned here?

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
How would they teach something that never happened? Keep in mind there is not even a hint from the NT she was assumed.

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

Nice try but it doesn’t hold. Its not that it did not happen yet but that there is no evidence from the 1st century itself that it actually did happen. You are still assuming it happened without any facts to back up the claim.

 

[epostle]

You gotta love the charity being shown by the Catholics on this forum.

At least some of us can have a little fun in the middle of a barroom brawl. The point is succinct, and illustrates the absurdities of biblical eisegesis that comes from the same myopic view of scripture that kept the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus time blind to the One who was standing in front of them.

OS uses the same pathetic methodolgy in his abuse of scripture. If it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck, it is not uncharitable to call it a duck.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Lets test the Scriptures with some of the teachings of the church.
Where do the Scriptures teach Mary’s assumption?

Where do we see anyone in the NT praying to a Christian who had died? Stephen was the first to die. Are there any prayers to him in the NT?

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

Not so. The reasons these kinds of examples are important in this discussion of sola scriptura is that it shows that the catholic rejection of it means that they must accept another source that is non-apostolic in its claims. Inherent in this discussion are the claims of the catholic church’ claims of wanting to be biblical and apostolic in its teachings. These examples show otherwise. A sola scriptura believer rejects these doctrines as being unbiblical since they are not taught in scritpure.

 

[Church_Militant]

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?This has already been refuted. You were shown to be pulling quotes out of context and then making assertions that were not supported by the context.

The main point is that the ECF would have rejected SS outright because they were so devoted to the (the whole 73 book) Word of God and SS is not found there.

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

Irrelevant, since Irenæus falls into the same category that I just pointed out.

He would not have believed Sola Scriptura
He would not have believed Sola Fide
He would not have believed the Rapture
He would not have believed OSAS
He would not have believed the few sacraments that you do.
He would not have believed or preached a “different gospel” like many modern post reformation n-C religions do.

Essentially, were he here he’d have specifically included your own position in his “Against Heresies” even as he does the following.

Chapter 6 – The threefold kind of man feigned by these heretics: good works needless for them, though necessary to others: their abandoned morals

Chapter 8 – How the Valentinians pervert the Scriptures to support their own pious opinions
Chapter 9 – Refutation of the impious interpretations of these heretics

Chapter 11 – The heretics, from their disbelief of the truth, have fallen into an abyss of error: reasons for investigating their systems

Chapter 1 – The apostles did not commence to preach the Gospel, or to place anything on record, until they were endowed with the gifts and power of the Holy Spirit. They preached one God alone, maker of heaven and earth.
Chapter 2 – The heretics follow neither Scripture nor Tradition
Chapter 3 – A refutation of the heretics, from the fact that, in the various churches, a perpetual succession of bishops was kept up
Chapter 4 – The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolical doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.
Chapter 5 – Christ and his apostles, without any fraud, deception, or hypocrisy, preached that one God,

Chapter 24 – Recapitulation of the various arguments adduced against Gnostic impiety under all its aspects. The heretics, tossed about by every blast of doctrine, are opposed by the uniform teaching of the Church, which remains so always, and is consistent with itself.

These are just some of the examples I found.

 

[IronHammer]

This is how you make the Bible “quite clear”.

Matthew 27:5 Judas went away and hung himself,
Luke 10:37 “Go and do likewise.”

Old Scholar may be way, way off in his interpretation of scripture, but I think that response goes too far. We are trying to evangelize and educate people on these forums, not make then go away.

 

[Church_Militant]

Huh? Look at this reference in Matthew 13:55-56 again. With just this text: to whom are the mother of His brothers and sisters that are mentioned here?

If Mary had other children they would have been responsible for her upkeep after the death of the first-born son.

Why then was one of the last things that Our Lord did from the cross the act of assigning his mother to the care of a non-family member?

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

If He had blood siblings instead of step siblings (who were not responsible for their step mother), why would he have done that?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3289508]
Originally Posted by justasking4
It doesn’t. Now what else is inspired-inerrant besides the Scriptures? What else carries the authority of the God breathed Scriptures?

guanophore
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?

no

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

The HS is God. However Christ never promised the church He would protect the church from error for the following reasons:
1- No such promise can be found in the Scriptures
2- Scripture warns that false teachers would come into the church itself and deceive many. 2 Peter 2:1 is quite clear when Peter writes: But **false prophets **also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

If Jesus promised that the church could not err then these warnings would be absurd.

 

[Church_Militant]

You gotta love the charity being shown by the Catholics on this forum.

My friend, I’d have to say that that cuts both ways.

Though you generally are exemplary, other n-Cs are not, and frustration will abound.

Let’s try to focus on the material facts under discussion and not the people making them so much. You do that pretty well and I applaud you for it and look forward to your posts.

Others could learn from you Pwrlftr.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Huh? Look at this reference in Matthew 13:55-56 again. With just this text: to whom are the mother of His brothers and sisters that are mentioned here?

Church Militant
If Mary had other children they would have been responsible for her upkeep after the death of the first-born son.

 

[Church_Militant]

Huh? Look at this reference in Matthew 13:55-56 again. With just this text: to whom are the mother of His brothers and sisters that are mentioned here?

Easily refuted by the notes in the Douay-Rheims New Testament: 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: 55 “His brethren”… These were the children of Mary the wife of Cleophas, sister to our Blessed Lady, (St. Matt. 27. 56; St. John 19. 25,) and therefore, according to the usual style of the Scripture, they were called brethren, that is, near relations to our Saviour.
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?

Couple of things to keep in mind:
1- Even His own brothers did not believe in Him at this time. See John 7:5

Totally irrelevant to the fact that they were step children of a previous mother at best.

2- Jesus death took place in Jerusalem and there is no indication that they were even in the city when this happened. I’m sure you would agree that communication was much slower in those days than today. I suspect they were totally unaware of what was happening or were to far away to do something about it.

Conjecture based upon an inaccurate premise, since we cannot know this for sure. Also see my point above.

I think my previous repsonse deals with this issue also.

I’ll have to disagree with you then.

 

[fbl9]

hi all this Jesus had brothers thing keeps coming up.the mega city thing kinda draws people apart some, compared to a small town.we don’t know much about Jesus’s early days but i can easily think of these brothers refered to as more “home boys” . we call each other brother yet we are not even close in relation.we sometimes refered to our close friends as brothers.some of our friends are most likely closer to us than our own flesh brothers. just an opinion back to the regular program.

 

[qui_est_ce]

no

The HS is God. However Christ never promised the church He would protect the church from error for the following reasons:
1- No such promise can be found in the Scriptures
2- Scripture warns that false teachers would come into the church itself and deceive many. 2 Peter 2:1 is quite clear when Peter writes: But **false prophets **also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

If Jesus promised that the church could not err then these warnings would be absurd.

Do you copy and paste your quotes from thread to thread?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3243222#post3243222

Are you of the school that if an error is repeated enough, it becomes fact?

I’ll post from Scripture one more time, YOU tell me what this means:
Matthew 16:16-18

16
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

What is the CHURCH?? What does it mean that the “gates of the netherworld” shall not “prevail” against it?

Matthew 18:17

17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church*. 14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

There’s that word CHURCH again.
John 14:26

The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you

Is the Advocate going to lead the church into error??

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3292166]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Huh? Look at this reference in Matthew 13:55-56 again. With just this text: to whom are the mother of His brothers and sisters that are mentioned here?

Church Militant
Easily refuted by the notes in the Douay-Rheims New Testament: 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: 55 “His brethren”… These were the children of Mary the wife of Cleophas, sister to our Blessed Lady, (St. Matt. 27. 56; St. John 19. 25,) and therefore, according to the usual style of the Scripture, they were called brethren, that is, near relations to our Saviour.
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?
Let me deal with the Matthew 13:55-56 passage. When “brothers and sisters” are used in connection with mother or father it means actual blood brothers and sisters.
This is part of the problem you have when you reject sola scriptura and have to try to make the scriptures say things it doesn’t.
Look at how the word “brother” is used in Luke 14:26. Its the same word as in Matthew 13:55. If you are going to be consistent then you would interpret Luke 14:26 to say;
“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and cousins or near relative and “cousins or near relative”, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
I would think most catholics would agree that this would be an unnatural rendering

Quote:justasking4
Couple of things to keep in mind:
1- Even His own brothers did not believe in Him at this time. See John 7:5

Church Militant
Totally irrelevant to the fact that they were step children of a previous mother at best.

Not irrelevant but it sheds some light on how His brothers looked at Him.
Secondly you have not offered one fact from the scriptures themselves that these were His step brothers. All i have seen is speculations and not facts to support this assertion.

Quote:justasking4
2- Jesus death took place in Jerusalem and there is no indication that they were even in the city when this happened. I’m sure you would agree that communication was much slower in those days than today. I suspect they were totally unaware of what was happening or were to far away to do something about it.

Church Militant
Conjecture based upon an inaccurate premise,

How is this an inaccurate premise?

since we cannot know this for sure.

However would you not agree that communication in those days was quite slow?

Also see my point above.

Quote;justasking4
I think my previous repsonse deals with this issue also.
Church Militant
I’ll have to disagree with you then.

This is what happens when you reject the Scriptures alone as the basis for doctrine and practice. In this particular example of Mary not having children of her own so that in part the catholic church can claim Mary to be an ever virgin you can’t be consistent with the Scriptures.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Not so. The reasons these kinds of examples are important in this discussion of sola scriptura is that it shows that the catholic rejection of it means that they must accept another source that is non-apostolic in its claims. Inherent in this discussion are the claims of the catholic church’ claims of wanting to be biblical and apostolic in its teachings. These examples show otherwise. A sola scriptura believer rejects these doctrines as being unbiblical since they are not taught in scritpure.

OMG this is like the skinny kid at the beach “making” the muscle man at the beach laugh by flexing his skinny arms in front of his girlfriend and forcing him to cry “uncle” just to go away.

The Catholic Church and very Catholic in this forum has been repeatedly telling you and other SS’sts that we embrace scripture equally with tradition with the caveat that none of our tradition is contrary to scripture. It’s not like we MUST be compelled to tell anyone this. So why torture us with this weak assertion? We all know what a sola scriptura’st is. She is somone that only wants to see in scripture what she is capable of privately seeing or in seeing what she wants to see. In most cases a SS sees anything that is contrary to Catholic Teaching and tradition. So ergo the student wants to teach the Teacher what the Teacher wrote. This is nothing but self defeating vanity and disrespect for authority; as well as disobedience to Jesus and His granting of authority to the Church.

You SS’st kick sand in your own eyes and then cry when Catholics tell you that you are living in a half-sleepy sandman kind of spirituality.

James

 

[Canto]

A cannon thought.

If Protestants follow the more common Jewish cannon and not the LLX/Catholic cannon why do they not use the Jewish numbering, order, sequence, names etc? It seems to me that they have the Catholic cannon with a few books yanked out for doctrinal reasons.

A few other thoughts…

•If five of my friends and I sit in a park and each have a different take on a scriptural passage…
•Who is right?
•Are we all right?
•Are we all wrong?
•Is one of us right?
•Does it matter?
•Who decides which one of us is right?
•Why do they get to decide?
•What authority do they have?
•Where did they get this authority?
•If a Baptist pastor overhears and says that I’m right, am I?
•What if a Anglican reverend overhears and says that Fred and not me is right?
•Who is right, the Baptist or the Anglican?
•Don’t in a debate people sometimes have different views on how to interpret the constitution?
•We have a court to decide whose interpretation of the constitution is right
•Catholics have the Magisterium (and Tradition + scripture)
•1 Timothy 3:15 tells us that the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the **truth.” **
•Not the bible

•If our interpretations of scripture is guided by the Holy spirit…
•Is this then as valid as scripture?
•And why has the Holy Spirit seemingly lead people to different interpretations?
•It should be noted though that I do believe the Holy Spirit guides/helps us in life
•The bible teaches that there should be unity (St Paul says “one faith”)
•Yet there are oodles of Christian denominations
•According to the World Christian (Protestant) Encyclopaedia (April 2003) there are more than 36,400+ Protestant denominations

•Person A: My Grandpa fought in world war 2
•Person B: No he didn’t
•A: Yes he did he told me about it
•B: Well it’s not written in a book so I don’t believe you
•A: But he told me and others and I’ve met some of the people he fought alongside
•B: So. It’s not written down, so I don’t believe it

•If Jesus wanted Sola Scriptura…
•Why did he leave the contents page to the Catholic Church?
•Why are some passages of the bible confusing and/or open to various interpretations?
•Wouldn’t the words have been rendered pure and simple?
•Why are their oodles of books and commentaries on the bible?

Can I recomend
scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html

 

[justasking4]

OMG this is like the skinny kid at the beach “making” the muscle man at the beach laugh by flexing his skinny arms in front of his girlfriend and forcing him to cry “uncle” just to go away.

The Catholic Church and very Catholic in this forum has been repeatedly telling you and other SS’sts that we embrace scripture equally with tradtion with the caveat that none of our tradition is contrary to tradition. It’s not like we MUST be compelled to tell anyone this. So why torture us with this weak assertion? We all know what a sola scriptura’st is. He is somone that only wants to see what in scripture what he is capable of privately seeing or in seeing what he wants to see. In most cases a SS sees anything that is contrary to Catholic Teaching and tradition. So ergo the student wants to teach the Teacher what the Teacher wrote. This is nothing but self defeating vanity and disrespect for authority; as well as disobedience to Jesus and His granting of authority to the Church.

You SS’st kick sand in your own eyes and then cry when Catholics tell you that you are living in a half-sleepy sandman kind of spirituality.

James

What is your defintion of Sola Scriptura?

 

[justasking4]

qui est ce;3292277]Do you copy and paste your quotes from thread to thread?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3243222#post3243222

Are you of the school that if an error is repeated enough, it becomes fact?

I knew you were to sharp for me. Evenually you would find out…

I’ll post from Scripture one more time, YOU tell me what this means:
Matthew 16:16-18

What is the CHURCH??

It is those individuals who are truly “in Christ”.

What does it mean that the “gates of the netherworld” shall not “prevail” against it?

The Jews would have understood “underworld or hades” as being physical death. Not even the death of Jesus would stop His work of building the church.

Matthew 18:17
There’s that word CHURCH again.
John 14:26

Is the Advocate going to lead the church into error??

No but men will.