why is it that other religions bleave in Sol Scriptorm but not us as Catholics?

[Christmysavor]

why is it that other religions believe in Sol Scripture tom but not us as Catholics?

 

[Della]

why is it that other religions believe in Sol Scripture tom but not us as Catholics?

Because it isn’t supported by Scripture, good theology, or history.

If some of our Protestant brethren want to think otherwise, we can nothing about that.

 

[InOmnemTerram]

I genuinely think sola Scriptura was simply a rationalization in the 16th century to excuse rebellion from the religious establishment. Perhaps that’s overly simplistic, and I realize the reformers might well have sincerely believed in the historicity and truth of sola Scriptura, but I believe this observation is true in essence.

As to why it is believed by Protestants today: mostly because that’s the way they’ve been brought up. It’s a presupposition most folks don’t question. Those that do, of course, either reject it, or else have very elaborate defenses of it from the perspective of the Bible and history. Many Catholics, like myself, simply find those defenses to be unconvincing.

 

[TheDoctor]

Because Scripture cannot stand on its own without a valid, consistent interpretation as God intended. Take these two examples I use in my PREP class when we discuss this very topic:
In Matt 5:29-30 Jesus says"If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.
If I am sola only, then why do I still have two eyes and two hands when both have caused me to sin? Of course, no one will argue that Jesus really means this but is using hyperbole. Now take John 6:51-56:
Jesus says …"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink…
Is he again speaking symbolically or does he really mean what he says?

It boils down for me to having a teaching magisterium handed down from the Apostles and guided by the Holy Spirit that speaks for the entire Church vs. individuals who interpret Scripture as they see it.

 

[PluniaZ]

Because it’s an easy slogan for the power hungry: “Your current religious leader is not following the true meaning of the Scriptures. He has no authority. The true meaning of the Scriptures is my own interpretation, so follow me!”

 

[Wesrock]

why is it that other religions believe in Sol Scripture tom but not us as Catholics?

Why should Catholics believe it? It’s never been part of the Church.

 

[Christmysavor]

Because it’s an easy slogan for the power hungry: “Your current religious leader is not following the true meaning of the Scriptures. He has no authority. The true meaning of the Scriptures is my own interpretation, so follow me!”

I understand what you are saying yes. I’m just glad I finally came home . I just am praying that my family will follow my example someday and come Home.

 

[Billy_Buescher]

If the Apostles did not believe in sola-scriptura, then why should we?

 

[Christmysavor]

If the Apostles did not believe in sola-scriptura, then why should we?

because Father was the one who founded the church in the first place . I am going though RCIA in September so just fyi I am coming Home finally :thumbsup:

 

[PJM]

why is it that other religions believe in Sol Scripture tom but not us as Catholics?

THANKS for asking

which can only be SINGULAR per defined issue. Nothing else is logical, moral or provable

1. The Bible was birthed by the RCC & is a CATHOLIC Book

It was the Early Catholic Fathers [the first Christians for about 500 years were ALL Catholics] who guided by the HS selected the 46 Jewish OT books to be included; and it was Catholics who AUTHORED the entrer NT, Guided by the HS

Exegents: Bible experts tell us the bible was not FULLY authored until the end of the 1st Century or very early 2nd Century. Christ died around 33 AD, so at a minimum there was about 70 YEARS before the bible was even written,

Secondly, it was not until the 4th Century that the Canon of the bible [list of books to be included] was 1st written & complied.

So their WAS a prolonged period that Christ Catholic Church existed with at BEST, fragmentary books of the bible. [Likely several centuries] This was further hindered by extreme cost of writing materials and a HIGH degree of illiteracy. Also the Apostles were widely scattered and intercommunication was scarce.

So the Early Christian [ALL CATHOLICS} were in fact without today’s bible to assist them. Teaching were word of mouth; guided and inspired by the HS

Eph. 2: 20-23 “Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone**: In whom all the building, [singular] being framed together, groweth up into a holy temple [SINGULAR] in the Lord. [singular] In whom you also are built together into a habitation of God in the Spirit.”

**John 14:16-17’**And I {Jesus/ God] will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, [Spirit] that he may abide with you forever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you

**John 14:26 ** “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you

In the early 16th Century; an apostate catholic priest; Martin Luther left the RCC to found his OWN religion; loosely based on Catholicism, which by this time was WORLD-WIDE

In order to have any chance of success; Luther HAD to be different; HAD to be easier and HAD to be marketable. So Luther rewrote the bible; deleting 7 entire books and making MANY theological teaching difference.to accommodate HIS personal beliefs.

Up until that time the RCC had a probation against the laity READING the bible on their own. It was though to be a sure way to lead to MANY misunderstanding. Which hisory has proven to be prudent & correct. As the Protestant reformation in 500 years HAS thousands of differing sets of Faith belief and churches; while the RCC after 2,000 years has 23 BRANCHES, ALL of whom still hold to the ONE True set of Faith beliefs.

2Peter 1: 19-21
And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [20] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. [21] For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

[Douay bible explanation]
**[20] **No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation: This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise. End Quotes

So Luther made a shewed gamble and advocated that EVERYONE in His NEW religion; designed to compete with Catholicism; COULD and SHOULD read the bible. The timing was GREAT too as the printing press had just been invented recently.

The RCC responded and begin permitting EVERYONE to read the Bible which they made available in :mother tongues"; where prior ALL Catholic approved bibles were in Latin. [There were some common tongue editions in a few languages; but this was the exception, not the rule]

The REASON the RCC did not fall into the self-made trap of Protestantism; was the Catholic seminary system was extensive & well founded & very effective; while the new-faith new churches simply did not have similar formation places for some period of time.

So, Sola Scriptura became the capstone of their growth

GBY

Patrick

 

[boomerang]

Protestant denominations adhere to Sola Scriptura because they reject the authority of the Pope. The Pope carries with him the Apostolic Tradition passed down from the Apostles. If you reject the Pope, you reject the Tradition that goes with him. The only thing that is left for the protestant is Sacred Scripture without authoritative interpretation, which is found in Tradition. Catholics have both.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Having discarded the Pope and the Magisterium, Sola Scriptura allows every individual who accepts that to be their own pope and “magisterium.”

 

[adamhovey1988]

I think you mean “sola scriptura”, correct? (I am horrible at spelling, used to be good at it, I blame the internet). Here’s a very good reason, the Bible doesn’t teach it.

 

[Nelka]

If the Apostles did not believe in sola-scriptura, then why should we?

A very good point especially as the Apostles were around before the completion of the Bible.

 

[Cathoholic]

Congratulations Christmysavor.

Whoooo Hoooooo!

Welcome home.

---

Sola Scriptura is wrong for the reasons outlined here by others.

But people KNOW there MUST be someone God placed in authority.

There is a vacuum there so to speak.

And this authority vacuum gets filled with their pastor or themselves in the case of sola Scriptura.

**Sola Scriptura acts as a sort of “conscience salve”. **Not for Protestants in general (most Protestants are born into a sola Scriptura paradigm and subsequently taught to accept sola Scriptura from their youth), but for people who ORIGINALLY broke away AND knew better.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[pianistclare]

Having discarded the Pope and the Magisterium, Sola Scriptura allows every individual who accepts that to be their own pope and “magisterium.”

This.

 

[phil19034]

Sola Scriptura is even indirectly denounced in Acts 8:26-38.

Read the whole verse, but the jist is that St. Philip heard the Ethiopian Eunuch reading from Isaiah so St. Philip jumped in the chariot with the the eunuch and asked him “Do you understand what you are reading?” And the eunuch responded “How can I, unless some one guides me?”

So then St. Philip instructed him in the Kerygma, proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ and teaching him about the passage and how it foretells Christ.

The Eunuch then became baptized.

This account of Scripture refutes Sola Scriptura because he shows that to truly understand Scripture, one must be taught. In order to be taught correctly, the teacher must be in communion with the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church… otherwise a false teacher could interpret the Scripture passages any way he/she wants and teach heresy.

Sola Scriptura denies the teaching authority of the Church and Sacred Tradition, which contains the Oral Tradition of the ancient Jews and the Church.

Remember - John 21:25 says that not everything Jesus did was written down. This is where Sacred Tradition comes in. But again, Sola Scriptura ignores this, hence Sola Scriptura ignores many teachings of Christ, which were not written down in the Bible. Plus, some of the teachings of Christ that are not in the Bible WERE written down… like the Divine Liturgy of the Holy Mass. The Church Fathers didn’t come up with the Liturgy on their own.

I pray this helps.

God Bless

 

[InOmnemTerram]

Sola Scriptura is even indirectly denounced in Acts 8:26-38.

To be fair, no informed Protestant would ever assert that sola Scriptura was actually practiced in the Apostolic age during the formation of the New Testament.

The question is what God left to be the ultimate authority for His people for the time after the last Apostle died. The Protestant would say Scripture, and passages like the one in Acts really isn’t relevant there. Furthermore, I would say that your explanation presupposes Apostolic succession and assumes a certain level of authority for Bishops. That’s an entirely different conversation that cannot be derived from the immediate context of the passage in Acts. A Protestant might well assume you are simply reading tradition into the text.

 

[po18guy]

Sola scriptura has an immediate appeal to the ego. Look at the early and profound argumentation and division that occurred among the reformers - never to be healed! Not a single one of the reformers was a meek or mild man. All had immense egos - easily manipulated by the spirit of the air. All grasped at earthly power and received it. Compare this with the appeal to the ego in Genesis 3 - the fall of mankind. I see a common source, a common influence.

The scriptures are incomplete and tell us this in many places. For those who claim that the scriptures are sufficient, do they want only a sufficient relationship with the Lord? At some level, does this not lack love of the Lord in His fullness, and as He has revealed Himself to man?

Scripture is easily twisted, so writes Peter in 2 Peter 3:16. Look at the factions and disagreeing sects that are all based on identical scriptures. How much more evidence do we need of the failure of “sola scriptura”?

 

[phil19034]

To be fair, no informed Protestant would ever assert that sola Scriptura was actually practiced in the Apostolic age during the formation of the New Testament.

The question is what God left to be the ultimate authority for His people for the time after the last Apostle died. The Protestant would say Scripture, and passages like the one in Acts really isn’t relevant there. Furthermore, I would say that your explanation presupposes Apostolic succession and assumes a certain level of authority for Bishops. That’s an entirely different conversation that cannot be derived from the immediate context of the passage in Acts. A Protestant might well assume you are simply reading tradition into the text.

Well… I did say “indirect.” But my point was simply this: Acts implies that in order to properly interpret Scripture, one must have a teacher. So if you need to have a teacher to properly understand Scripture, then how can Scripture be the ultimate authority?