"Why" is sola scriptura important?

[Ruthie]

Illuminator, let me shed some light.

 To go back to your first post, you said that we believe:

1) The Catholic Faith is the author of the Holy Bible

 1. **God** is the author of the Bible. Catholics gathered the various books and finalized the canon.

2) The Holy BIble is not an inspired document and is not infalible

 2. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant. It is not infallible because only humans are capable of making choices. Printed words cannot make choices. I also personally argue that it is not infallible, because “infallible” means “unable to teach error.” If the Bible was infallible, then nobody could disagree on what a verse means – it would be clear from the start.

*3) The protestant church couldn’t deal with authority and borke away and used the “sola scriptura” as an excuse to apostitize
*3. I think most people here have some understanding of what led to the “reformation.” I suggest you read Luther’s “95 Theses.” They can be found at spurgeon.org/~phil/history/95theses.htm.

 *4) Prostestants today are confused and probably wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.

sub point: if so many churches claim to obey the Bible and only the Bible (i.e. protestants) - why are there so many churches?
*4. Protestants are our “separated brethren.” That is the term we use. The average Protestant is certainly confused when it comes to what the Catholic Church teaches. Yes, we thing they are wrong about some interpretations. Your “sub point” is a reasonable question.

 *5) Tradition has been handed down from Christ to Peter to Popes etc.

*5. True – if you are referring to Tradition with a capital T. Most of us use that as a short way of saying “Sacred Tradition” which is the oral teachings of Christ and the Apostles that weren’t written down in the books that were determined to be Sacred Scripture, but handed down orally.

 *6) Traditiion is needed to properly interpret the Bible and without tradition - the world is hopeless to ascertain the truth.*

1. See above. But keep in mind that our Church does not have an official interpretation of each and every verse in the Bible.

 ***

  You wrote:

  (quoting another poster) *And, once again, the Council of Trent did not condemn Protestantism on the basis of Sunday worship. Condemnation of Sola Scriptura is quite another issue, entirely.

Again please read the site (which is from the Catholic web site “Mary Online”*

 1. Why don’t you read the Trent documents for yourself? They can be found here: [history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html](http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html) 

 2. There is no such website as “Mary Online.” I Googled it. I even Googled “Mary On Line.” 

 The web page you sent us to has this at the very top:

“This article was taken from the web at www.immaculateheart.com which has since removed it.”

---

I must plainly state that all [ALL] the quotes and information that I have presented was written and approved by the Catholic Church.

 Anybody calling themselves a Catholic could have written them. REad these forums long enough, and you will find that we have plenty of dissenters who insist they are Catholics.

The only way you can prove they are approved is to show an Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat with each article. None appear on the website. (amazingdiscoveries.org/research/maryonline.htm) In fact, “amazing discoveries” seems to be a Creationist website, and not Catholic at all.

 

[lavalamp]

illuminator:

Now when I read the Catholic literature on these subjects I find one of two curious things. Some literature attempts to find Biblical evidence to support the belief and equally authoritve literature attempts to say that it is based on Traditional authority alone. Now which is it? Or can it be both. I suppose it can be both (for instance - tradition interpreting certain Biblical texts in a certain way). However, sometimes the two are mutually exclusive: case in point:

The Sabbath: This is a very important subject.

There is quite a bit of published Catholic literature for Biblical “evidence” for the switch from Saturday to Sunday.
In 1998, Pope John Paul II wrote an apostolic letter “The Lord’s Day” where he gave Biblical evidence for keeping Sunday as the Sabbath (he referred to the 10 commandments). In addition, if you read the web site given to me from Catholic apologists: catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9902fea1.asp, it also make the case for biblical evidence for the change from Saturday to Sunday.

These recent publications are curious to me because there is an even larger body of Catholic literature stating, in effect, that there is absolutely no Biblical evidence for the basis of a Sunday Observance.

Your confusion can be cleared up by simply noting that the Bible is not a catechism. The Catholic Church claims that the Apostles changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. This is demonstrated with out a shadow of a doubt historically by the Church Fathers. See catholic.com/library/Sabbath_or_Sunday.asp We can find evidence of this also in the Bible (see “The Lord’s Day” and Church Militant’s post #59). However, this evidence taken on its own without extensive study seems inconclusive (ie the Bible never states: “Worship on Sunday”). Certainly nowhere does the Bible prohibit us from worshiping on Sunday, the question is do we still need to practice the Sabbath as the Jews did. As the Catechisms pointed out, we are not bound by the old law. Evidence for this can be found all over the place: Jesus healing on the Sabbath, eating with out washing, the decision to not require circumcision of gentile christians etc.

illuminator:

So my question is: Why does the Catholic church suddenly now in the 21 centruy have the urge to go “sola scriptura” on the Sabbth issue (i.e. Pope’s apostolic letter). Why not just continue saying as they have done in the past, “there is NO basis for the observance of Sunday other than tradition.” Instead points are made about texts in the New Testament and how they relate to the Sabbath changing to Sunday.

The Church is not suddenly going sola scriptura here. Rather, recognizing that non Catholics and SDA do not accept tradition as a valid basis for argument, effort is made to demonstrate this from scripture. Similarly, the word trinity is never mentioned in the Bible, yet all Christians believe in it. In efforts to prove the existence of the Trinity the Church could simply point to Tradition and say “see the early Church believed in the Trinity” and point to a Church Father who spells it our clearly like on the Catholic Answers page on the Trinity. However, to convince people who reject Tradition, it is necessary to argue solely from scritpure, which can be difficult due to differences in interpretation (ie an argument from x y and z passages might make perfect sense to you, but seem totally false to me because our interpretation of x, y, and z differ, so we then need to agree on what x, y, and z mean, which means looking at passages a, b, and c and so on.)

illuminator:

And make no mistake about it, both view points are mutually exclusive to each other. This is a situation where two “traditions” are at odds with each other.

These views are not mutally exclusive for the simple reason that theological proofs are not like math proofs. There are different degrees to which evidence supports or rejects a claim. The difference between supporting evidence and conclusive evidence varies from interpretation to interpretation. Thus for a person to say “there is evidence for x in the Bible that satisfies me but there is no proof for x in the Bible that satisfies you” is perfectly consistent. Truth cannot be at odds with itself, thus Tradition and Scritpure do not contradict each other. However, our interpretations of scripture can certainly be self-contradictory and/or contradict Tradition. The problem is with our interpretations, not with Tradition or the Scripture. In fact, it is tradition combined with the teaching authoity of the Church that helps us avoid these problems of interpration in the first place. This is why the Catholic Church is visibly united compared with the fractured nature of protestant denominations

 

[illuminator]

I appriciate Lavalamps lengthy but good discussion (I tend to go long too).

What I meant for mutually exclusive was actually the fact that the Protestants were rejected at the Council of Trent on the basis that the Catholics could find no sola scriptura evidence for the Protestants keeping Sunday. In other words, the Protestants were saying “hey we only follow the Bible.” The Catholics replied, "then why do you follow us in keeping the Lord’s day on Sunday - a practice that has no Biblical basis.

"It was upon this very point that the Reformation was condemned by the Council of Trent. The Reformers had constantly charged, as here stated, that the Catholic Church had “apostatized from the truth as contained in the written word. “The written word,” “The Bible and the Bible only,” “Thus saith the Lord,” these were their constant watchwords; and “the Scripture, as in the written word, the sole standard of appeal,” this was the proclaimed platform of the Reformation and of Protestantism. “The Scripture and tradition.” The Bible as interpreted by the Church and according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers,” this was the position and claim of the Catholic Church. This was the main issue in the Council of Trent, which was called especially to consider the questions that had been raised and forced upon the attention of Europe by the Reformers. The very first question concerning faith that was considered by the council was the question involved in this issue. There was a strong party even of the Catholics within the council who were in favor of abandoning tradition and adopting the Scriptures only, as the standard of authority. This view was so decidedly held in the debates in the council that the pope’s legates actually wrote to him that there was “a strong tendency to set aside tradition altogether and to make Scripture the sole standard of appeal.” But to do this would manifestly be to go a long way toward justifying the claims of the Protestants. By this crisis there was developed upon the ultra-Catholic portion of the council the task of convincing the others that “Scripture and tradition” were the only sure ground to stand upon. If this could be done, the council could be carried to issue a decree condemning the Reformation, otherwise not. The question was debated day after day, until the council was fairly brought to a standstill. Finally, after a long and intensive mental strain, the Archbishop of Reggio came into the council with substantially the following argument to the party who held for Scripture alone:

“The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only. They profess to hold the Scripture alone as the standard of faith. They justify their revolt by the plea that the Church has apostatized from the written word and follows tradition. Now the Protestants claim, that they stand upon the written word only, is not true. Their profession of holding the Scripture alone as the standard of faith, is false. PROOF: The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they do truly hold the scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the Scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church. Consequently the claim of ‘Scripture alone as the standard,’ fails; and the doctrine of ‘Scripture and tradition’ as essential, is fully established, the Protestants themselves being judges.”

SO after the Council of trent - there could be no saying that there was biblical basis for keeping of the Lord’s day.

Yet, I get quotes from Church Militant
please read:
amazingdiscoveries.org/research/maryonline.htm

 

[illuminator]

For Church Militant:

For those of you who constantly say that my quotes are dubous and nor authoritive:

Please go to:

http://english.sdaglobal.org/dnl/bacchi/books/sab2sun.pdf#search=‘Bacchiocchi%20thesis’

THis has an IMPRIMATUR given in 1975 by the Pope. It was published by the THE PONTIFICAL GREGORIAN UNIVERSITY PRESS ROME, ITALY 1977. (can you get any higher)

1. It states that the NT texts used for support the Lord’s Day is baseless
2. It states that the Lord’s Day occured more for regio political reasons but that the Church changed it (or stopped the sabbath) (or created the Lord’s day) from its own authority.

But don’t take my word for it. Read it yourself.

 

[DeFide]

illuminator:

please read:
amazingdiscoveries.org/research/maryonline.htm

You keep rehashing the same “confusions” time and time again after people explain it to you and you keep posting Seventh Day Adventist links while claiming to be sincerely investigating Catholic teaching.

By the way, perhaps you could answer this for me: Why do so many SDA links and books go so far out of their way to hide the fact that they are SDA? Are they ashamed of themselves? Are they afraid that their church of modern origin cannot withstand scrutiny?

 

[jim1130]

Peace.

This seems like a healthy Web site to dismiss Samuele Bacchiocchi of the SDA and his agenda:

bible.ca/H-sunday.htm

Here are samples:

90AD DIDACHE: “Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day: 1. But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. 2. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. 3. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.” (Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Chapter XIV)

100 AD BARNABAS “We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead” (The Epistle of Barnabas, 100 AD 15:6-8).

100 AD BARNABAS: Moreover God says to the Jews, ‘Your new moons and Sabbaths 1 cannot endure.’ You see how he says, ‘The present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but the Sabbath which I have made in which, when I have rested [heaven: Heb 4] from all things, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world.’ Wherefore we Christians keep the eighth day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared ascended into heaven. (15:8f, The Epistle of Barnabas, 100 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 147)

 

[jim1130]

Peace.

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Seventh-day Adventist Historian Refuted

“The so called “inspired prophet” Ellen White originally claimed the Pope started “Sunday worship” White later changed her mind and said the Emperor Constantine introduced “Sunday worship” in 325 AD. Today, Adventists blame the interaction of Sunday worship on Christians in 135 AD and not the Pope or Constantine!”

bible.ca/7-Bacchiocchi.htm

 

[illuminator]

Now we are all off the point. This is a sola scriptura thread -not a SDA bash site.

Again - all the literature I have presented is Catholic and, like the Samuele Bacchiocchi case, has approval form Rome.

BTW, the Samuele Bacchiocchi, Seventh-day Adventist Historian Refuted site is all about refuting him from a SDA standpoint. It’s more about refuting Ellen G White. Which shouldn’t interest you anyway.

WHy do you keep calling it “Catholic stuff on SDA web sites” So if I put the cathechism on a SDA web site would it stop being Catholic?

The fact that it is on the SDA web site is because it serves the SDA view point (which is the same as the Catholic view point in this case) which is: the Catholic Church alone instituted the Lord’s Day without any Biblical Evidence. The SDAs show this to Protestants who claim that there is evidence. The Catholics like this because (like they did at the Council of Trent) they show that the Protestants are hippocrites when it comes to sola scriptura. Desite the fact that some of the evidence is on SDA web sites should not invalidate the material. After all - it is still written by Catholics and it still recieved the “blessing” from ROME. So enough with the SDA thing. Frankly, I’m tired of it. I’ve shown you stuff that wasn’t from SDA sites. I’ve shown you stuff from you’re own Catechism (you pick which one) - it all agrees.

 

[jim1130]

illuminator:

Now we are all off the point. This is a sola scriptura thread -not a SDA bash site.

Again - all the literature I have presented is Catholic and, like the Samuele Bacchiocchi case, has approval form Rome.

BTW, the Samuele Bacchiocchi, Seventh-day Adventist Historian Refuted site is all about refuting him from a SDA standpoint. It’s more about refuting Ellen G White. Which shouldn’t interest you anyway.

WHy do you keep calling it “Catholic stuff on SDA web sites” So if I put the cathechism on a SDA web site would it stop being Catholic?

The fact that it is on the SDA web site is because it serves the SDA view point (which is the same as the Catholic view point in this case) which is: the Catholic Church alone instituted the Lord’s Day without any Biblical Evidence. The SDAs show this to Protestants who claim that there is evidence. The Catholics like this because (like they did at the Council of Trent) they show that the Protestants are hippocrites when it comes to sola scriptura. Desite the fact that some of the evidence is on SDA web sites should not invalidate the material. After all - it is still written by Catholics and it still recieved the “blessing” from ROME. So enough with the SDA thing. Frankly, I’m tired of it. I’ve shown you stuff that wasn’t from SDA sites. I’ve shown you stuff from you’re own Catechism (you pick which one) - it all agrees.

Peace.

You brought Samuele Bacchiocchi and seem to think he has credibility. I am showing that he does not.

Formal Debate - bible.ca/7-Bacchiocchi-lewis-debate.htm

Samuele Bacchiocci turns nasty when confronted by the truth - theotokos.co.za/adventism/bacch.html and theotokos.co.za/adventism/fullhdbacch1.txt

Dies Domini (The Day of the Lord) – Rebuttal - theotokos.co.za/adventism/diesdom.html

From Sabbath to Sunday: The Bacchiocchi Agenda - Which “Sabbath” Does He Truly Support? members.aol.com/BRIHOECK7/Samuele.html

BACCHIOCCHI/RATZLAFF SABBATH DEBATE: Part 13 - northwood.edu/staff/grover/sb-svs13.html

Life Assurance Ministries (Ministering to former members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church)- ratzlaf.com/ (former SDA Pastor, Rev. Dale Ratzlaff)

Ellen White Research Project and “Samuele Bacchiocchi Fires Back - Dr. Bacchiocchi’s Response to our Article - And Three Selected Responses to Dr. Bacchiocchi’s Response - ellenwhite.org/gc1_response.htm

Peace.

 

[DeFide]

illuminator:

Now we are all off the point. This is a sola scriptura thread -not a SDA bash site.

WHy do you keep calling it “Catholic stuff on SDA web sites” So if I put the cathechism on a SDA web site would it stop being Catholic?
.

Why would you bother going to an SDA site since the Catechism is online from Catholic sources? You have repeatedly shown that you simply do not know what constitutes Catholic teaching, or how it is determined.

If you want to get back on the thread topic and talk about Sola Scriptura, be my guest:clapping: :

1. Define Sola Scriptura. Then, for that definition to be true, you must find it in the Bible.
2. Going by the Bible alone, how do you determine which books belong in the Bible and which books don’t?

 

[illuminator]

Samuele Bacchiocchi was given an IMPRIMATUR in 1975 by the Pope. It was published by the THE PONTIFICAL GREGORIAN UNIVERSITY PRESS ROME, ITALY 1977. (can you get any higher).

THis would be the first time I have heard of Catholics (you) taking the advice of Protestant web sites (SDA) that attempt to discredit him over the IMPRIMATUR given his thesis by the Pontiff.
Are you saying that the IMPRIMATUR given his thiese was incorrectly given (say it ain’t so).

For the last time. Look at the Catechism - look under third commandment. It’s IN YOUR OWN LITERATURE! I says something like - "THe church saw fit to change the hold day from Sabbath to Sunday. " - not something like - “based on this text or that text - we believe that God wanted us to change the day…”

Exactly what I’ve been saying!

I’m tired of showing you all your OWN catechism and your OWN literature. I’m not trying to convert you to some other religion.

I am very suprised at the lack of knowledge on the part of Catholics about their own beliefs. As I said, look up “Council of Trent” in Encycopedia Britannica and READ IT!. Look up your own Cathechism on the Third Commandment and READ IT. Stop trying to discredit me and my sources becuase it all eventully goes back to you. IT ALL CATHOLIC LITERATURE!

Oh, and for sola scriptura texts: How about this one:
Is 8:20.

 

[DeFide]

illuminator:

Samuele Bacchiocchi was given an IMPRIMATUR in 1975 by the Pope. It was published by the THE PONTIFICAL GREGORIAN UNIVERSITY PRESS ROME, ITALY 1977. (can you get any higher).

THis would be the first time I have heard of Catholics (you) taking the advice of Protestant web sites (SDA) that attempt to discredit him over the IMPRIMATUR given his thesis by the Pontiff.
Are you saying that the IMPRIMATUR given his thiese was incorrectly given (say it ain’t so).

For the last time. Look at the Catechism - look under third commandment. It’s IN YOUR OWN LITERATURE! I says something like - "THe church saw fit to change the hold day from Sabbath to Sunday. " - not something like - “based on this text or that text - we believe that God wanted us to change the day…”

Exactly what I’ve been saying!

I’m tired of showing you all your OWN catechism and your OWN literature. I’m not trying to convert you to some other religion.

I am very suprised at the lack of knowledge on the part of Catholics about their own beliefs. As I said, look up “Council of Trent” in Encycopedia Britannica and READ IT!. Look up your own Cathechism on the Third Commandment and READ IT. Stop trying to discredit me and my sources becuase it all eventully goes back to you. IT ALL CATHOLIC LITERATURE!

Oh, and for sola scriptura texts: How about this one:
Is 8:20.

An imprimatur isn’t given by the Pope (the doc you linked named a “Carrier” as the reviewer), and it isn’t an indicator of Catholic teaching. It merely indicates that the reviewer didn’t find anything contrary to Catholic teaching.

A book of mathematics or poetry could get an imprimatur.

Next, you forgot to define Sola Scriptura. Don’t you know what it means? How can we debate it if you don’t define it?

Next:

Isaiah 8:20
To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.

This doesn’t say anything about going by the Bible alone. Besides, the New Testament wasn’t even around when this was written. So “the law…and the testimony” cannot equal the Bible.

 

[illuminator]

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying, “Not contrary to Catholic Doctrine”! What was said in the thesis was not contrary to Catholic Doctrine! Thank you for finally acknowledging this!

In Is 8:20, the testimony refers to the NT. Basically, I read it as: If anyone speaks contrary to the Bible (including tradition), then it is wrong! (no light) (no truth). That means for doctrinal purposes, the Bible and the Bible alone.

Notice it didn’t say, “If they speak not according to this word and the Tradition, there is no light in them” It just uses the Word as a basis.

 

[jimmy]

illuminator:

Samuele Bacchiocchi was given an IMPRIMATUR in 1975 by the Pope. It was published by the THE PONTIFICAL GREGORIAN UNIVERSITY PRESS ROME, ITALY 1977. (can you get any higher). .

FALSE, read the first couple pages of the link you gave. The imprimature was given by R.P. Herve Carrier S.J. This is not the pope. Whether this recieved an imprimatur does not matter, it does not make it true. It simply makes it acceptable to that person who gave it the imprimatur. This bears no more authority than any other book. Imprimatur does not mean official document. I gave you documents that were produced by popes that explicitely say that it is scriptural and that the apostles were the ones who did it. THree catechisms that say this. Yet you continue to ignore it and still try to put forth your claim. The one was published by the pope immediately after the council of Trent, which is the council you claim supposedly argued that it was unscriptural(this isn’t in the documents of Trent though).

 

[DeFide]

illuminator:

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying, “Not contrary to Catholic Doctrine”! What was said in the thesis was not contrary to Catholic Doctrine! Thank you for finally acknowledging this!

In Is 8:20, the testimony refers to the NT. Basically, I read it as: If anyone speaks contrary to the Bible (including tradition), then it is wrong! (no light) (no truth). That means for doctrinal purposes, the Bible and the Bible alone.

Notice it didn’t say, “If they speak not according to this word and the Tradition, there is no light in them” It just uses the Word as a basis.

Thanks for acknowledging that your document isn’t Catholic teaching.

Still waiting for your definition of Sola Scriptura…

Your reading isn’t the same as God’s word. It’s YOUR personal interpretation that is condemned by the Bible:

2 Pet 1:20 - no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation

Also, the Bible tells us to hold fast to Tradition:

1 Cor 11:2 - hold fast to traditions I handed on to you
2 Thess 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
2 Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition

And that the Church is the final court of appeal:

‘If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector’ (Mt 18:15-17).

"The Bible is very clear to me about what to do if we have a disagreement with one another over some issue pertaining to the Faith. And please remember: To lead someone into heresy is a grievous sin against your brother according to Galatians 5:19-21! The Bible tells us that the Church, not the Bible, is the final court of appeal.

source:
http://www.geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/staplessolascriptura.html

 

[jimmy]

Here is a little tidbit of information on the imprimatur. The imprimatur does not necessarily mean that the person who gave it is in agreement with the the text. What it means is that, morally and doctrinally, it is not in error. The arguements may be incorrect though. Often when a bishop gives the imprimatur, the following statement is included immediately afterward.

The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed."

For example, take a look at this page below which includes it.

queenship.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=543

So, an imrimatur does not mean ‘this is absolutely true’. You offer a document and say it is supported by the pope. It is not. It also does not bea authority to say ‘this is truth’.

 

[jim1130]

illuminator:

Samuele Bacchiocchi was given an IMPRIMATUR in 1975 by the Pope. It was published by the THE PONTIFICAL GREGORIAN UNIVERSITY PRESS ROME, ITALY 1977. (can you get any higher).

THis would be the first time I have heard of Catholics (you) taking the advice of Protestant web sites (SDA) that attempt to discredit him over the IMPRIMATUR given his thesis by the Pontiff.
Are you saying that the IMPRIMATUR given his thiese was incorrectly given (say it ain’t so).

For the last time. Look at the Catechism - look under third commandment. It’s IN YOUR OWN LITERATURE! I says something like - "THe church saw fit to change the hold day from Sabbath to Sunday. " - not something like - “based on this text or that text - we believe that God wanted us to change the day…”

Exactly what I’ve been saying!

I’m tired of showing you all your OWN catechism and your OWN literature. I’m not trying to convert you to some other religion.

I am very suprised at the lack of knowledge on the part of Catholics about their own beliefs. As I said, look up “Council of Trent” in Encycopedia Britannica and READ IT!. Look up your own Cathechism on the Third Commandment and READ IT. Stop trying to discredit me and my sources becuase it all eventully goes back to you. IT ALL CATHOLIC LITERATURE!

Oh, and for sola scriptura texts: How about this one:
Is 8:20.

Peace.

You put a lot of stock, credibility, and credence in this individual, that you subscribe to his opinions, and I am showing that he lacks any element of credibility. He says Catholics made Sunday the Holy Day in 325 by Constatine then changed his mind and said it was 135 AD. How many other times do you think he has been proven wrong? Why place your trust in this individual?

Peace.

 

[illuminator]

don’t need to. I have based by evidence of a WHOLE lot of different people (see all the quotes from above) I don’t want to redo them becuase it would take several posts.

More info on the Council of Trent (since people still don’t beleive me that the Protestant Church (Reformation) was rejected there on the basis of a number of things but the most major being the fact that they held to sola scriptura but still kept Sunday as proscribed by the Catholic Church:

1. Sabbath, Change of, Cited as Proof That Tradition Is Above Scripture

Source: Gaspare [Ricciulli] de Fosso (Archbishop of Reggio), Address in the 17th session of the Council of Trent, Jan. 18, 1562, in Mansi SC, Vol. 33, cols. 529, 530. Latin. Gian Domenico Mansi, ''Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio"]

[col. 529] Such is the condition of the heretics of this age that on nothing do they rely more than that, under the pretense of the word of God, they overthrow the authority of the church; as though the church, His body, could be opposed to the word of Christ, or the head to the body. On the contrary, the authority of the church, then, is illustrated most clearly by the Scriptures; for while on the one hand she recommends them, declares them to be divine, [col. 530] offers them to us to be read, in doubtful matters explains them faithfully, and condemns whatever is contrary to them; on the other hand, the legal precepts in the Scriptures taught by the Lord have ceased by virtue of the same authority. The Sabbath, the most glorious day in the law, has been changed into the Lord’s day. Circumcision, enjoined upon Abraham and his seed under such threatening that he who had not been circumcised would be destroyed from among his people, has been so abrogated that the apostle asserts: “If ye be circumcised, ye have fallen from grace, and Christ shall profit you nothing.” These and other similar matters have not ceased by virtue of Christ’s teaching (for He says He has come to fulfill the law, not to destroy it), but they have been changed by the authority of the church. Indeed, if she should be removed (since there must be heresies), who would set forth truth, and confound the obstinacy of heretics? All things will be confused, and soon heresies condemned by her authority will spring up again. [See No. 1444.]
1444. Sabbath, Change of—Cited in Council of Trent as Proof that Tradition Is Above Scripture

Source: Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Kanon und Tradition (“Canon and Tradition”) (Ludwigsburg: Druck and Verlag von Ferd. Riehm, 1859), p. 263. German. [FRS No. 72.] [Facsimile (in the original German) below.]

The Council [of Trent] agreed fully with Ambrosius Pelargus, that under no condition should the Protestants be allowed to triumph by saying that the council had condemned the doctrine of the ancient church. But this practice caused untold difficulty without being able to guarantee certainty. For this business, indeed, ‘well-nigh divine prudence’ was requisite—which the Spanish ambassador acknowledged as belonging to the council on the sixteenth of March, 1562. Indeed, thus far they had not been able to orient themselves to the interchanging, crisscrossing, labyrinthine, twisting passages of an older and newer concept of tradition. But even in this they were to succeed. Finally, at the last opening on the eighteenth of January, 1562, all hesitation was set aside: [Gaspar de Fosso] the Archbishop of Reggio made a speech [see No. 1443] in which he openly declared that tradition stood above Scripture. The authority of the church could therefore not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures, because the church had changed circumcision into baptism, Sabbath into Sunday, not by the command of Christ, but by its own authority. With this, to be sure, the last illusion was destroyed, and it was declared that tradition does not signify antiquity, but continual inspiration.

If you still don’t agree please read the Catholic document:
amazingdiscoveries.org/research/maryonline.htm

Notice none of what I’ve said here includes Samuele Bacchiocchi. He’s just another piece of the puzzle that you must take into consideration. Putting all the pices together and you get the picture fully.

Matt 15:8-9: This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Matthew 3:16-4:4

“If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’”

 

[DeFide]

illuminator:

don’t need to. I have based by evidence of a WHOLE lot of different people (see all the quotes from above) I don’t want to redo them becuase it would take several posts.

More info on the Council of Trent (since people still don’t beleive me that the Protestant Church (Reformation) was rejected there on the basis of a number of things but the most major being the fact that they held to sola scriptura but still kept Sunday as proscribed by the Catholic Church:

1. Sabbath, Change of, Cited as Proof That Tradition Is Above Scripture

Source: Gaspare [Ricciulli] de Fosso (Archbishop of Reggio), Address in the 17th session of the Council of Trent, Jan. 18, 1562, in Mansi SC, Vol. 33, cols. 529, 530. Latin. Gian Domenico Mansi, ''Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio"]

[col. 529] Such is the condition of the heretics of this age that on nothing do they rely more than that, under the pretense of the word of God, they overthrow the authority of the church; as though the church, His body, could be opposed to the word of Christ, or the head to the body. On the contrary, the authority of the church, then, is illustrated most clearly by the Scriptures; for while on the one hand she recommends them, declares them to be divine, [col. 530] offers them to us to be read, in doubtful matters explains them faithfully, and condemns whatever is contrary to them; on the other hand, the legal precepts in the Scriptures taught by the Lord have ceased by virtue of the same authority. The Sabbath, the most glorious day in the law, has been changed into the Lord’s day. Circumcision, enjoined upon Abraham and his seed under such threatening that he who had not been circumcised would be destroyed from among his people, has been so abrogated that the apostle asserts: “If ye be circumcised, ye have fallen from grace, and Christ shall profit you nothing.” These and other similar matters have not ceased by virtue of Christ’s teaching (for He says He has come to fulfill the law, not to destroy it), but they have been changed by the authority of the church. Indeed, if she should be removed (since there must be heresies), who would set forth truth, and confound the obstinacy of heretics? All things will be confused, and soon heresies condemned by her authority will spring up again. [See No. 1444.]
1444. Sabbath, Change of—Cited in Council of Trent as Proof that Tradition Is Above Scripture

Source: Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Kanon und Tradition (“Canon and Tradition”) (Ludwigsburg: Druck and Verlag von Ferd. Riehm, 1859), p. 263. German. [FRS No. 72.] [Facsimile (in the original German) below.]

The Council [of Trent] agreed fully with Ambrosius Pelargus, that under no condition should the Protestants be allowed to triumph by saying that the council had condemned the doctrine of the ancient church. But this practice caused untold difficulty without being able to guarantee certainty. For this business, indeed, ‘well-nigh divine prudence’ was requisite—which the Spanish ambassador acknowledged as belonging to the council on the sixteenth of March, 1562. Indeed, thus far they had not been able to orient themselves to the interchanging, crisscrossing, labyrinthine, twisting passages of an older and newer concept of tradition. But even in this they were to succeed. Finally, at the last opening on the eighteenth of January, 1562, all hesitation was set aside: [Gaspar de Fosso] the Archbishop of Reggio made a speech [see No. 1443] in which he openly declared that tradition stood above Scripture. The authority of the church could therefore not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures, because the church had changed circumcision into baptism, Sabbath into Sunday, not by the command of Christ, but by its own authority. With this, to be sure, the last illusion was destroyed, and it was declared that tradition does not signify antiquity, but continual inspiration.

If you still don’t agree please read the Catholic document:
amazingdiscoveries.org/research/maryonline.htm

Notice none of what I’ve said here includes Samuele Bacchiocchi. He’s just another piece of the puzzle that you must take into consideration. Putting all the pices together and you get the picture fully.

Matt 15:8-9: This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Matthew 3:16-4:4

“If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’”

I guess you’re not that interested in staying on thread topic.

I didn’t see anywhere in Trent what you were claiming. Could you highlight the sentence or two that you think proves your point?

 

[jimmy]

The Sabbath, the most glorious day in the law, has been changed into the Lord’s day. Circumcision, enjoined upon Abraham and his seed under such threatening that he who had not been circumcised would be destroyed from among his people, has been so abrogated that the apostle asserts: “If ye be circumcised, ye have fallen from grace, and Christ shall profit you nothing.” These and other similar matters have not ceased by virtue of Christ’s teaching (for He says He has come to fulfill the law, not to destroy it), but they have been changed by the authority of the church. Indeed, if she should be removed (since there must be heresies), who would set forth truth, and confound the obstinacy of heretics?

Are you seriously going to use this to defend your idea? It doesn’t come close to giving the interpretation you want it to mean. It says that the Church changed the sabbath to the Lords Day, yes I agree. But it joins this to the change from the necessity of circumcision to it not being necessary. These were both decided by the Church. The change of the circumcision rule is witnessed in Acts15 and in Romans. The change of the sabbath to the Lords Day is witnessed in Acts. Yes, they were both decided by the authority of the Church, but that does not mean they are not scriptural. They most definately are scriptural and were changed by the apostles.

---

Your other quote says the same exact thing. It does not say that the Church changed it after the apostles left the earth. Again it links both the change of circumcision and the change of the sabbath celebration. They are both changed by the apostles and they do not use scripture to back it up. They used their authority. But these are both backed up by the scriptures as mentioned above.

You should do a more indepth study and read what the early church fathers said.