Why Sola Scriptura fails

[Nicea325]

No difference on doctrine or issues with the Catholic church in a good many areas. Does the church have a doctrine that calls abortion sinful? I believe they do. Yet, certain Catholic lawyers think it’s okay to deny the personhood of a full term baby who died prior to natural birth due to alleged malpractice. Their reasoning: only people born, can be on the receiving end of malpractice. That looks like a problem with doctrine and issues to me. But you can believe whatever you choose, and I’m happy to respect that.

The problem is NOT the doctrine, it is the person who is the problem. Again, does not matter what Catholic has to say if it is in conflict. No doctrine is out to be changed because an individual goes against it. Do you really believe the early church was concerned with Arius who rejected Jesus divinity and he lost by a landslide? Nope!

 

[Porknpie]

No difference on doctrine or issues with the Catholic church in a good many areas. Does the church have a doctrine that calls abortion sinful? I believe they do. Yet, certain Catholic lawyers think it’s okay to deny the personhood of a full term baby who died prior to natural birth due to alleged malpractice. Their reasoning: only people born, can be on the receiving end of malpractice. That looks like a problem with doctrine and issues to me. But you can believe whatever you choose, and I’m happy to respect that.

Forever,

Don’t confuse Church doctrine with immoral actions of people. From the Catechism below. The Church does not error on faith and morals even with sinful humans as part of her body. You can read more here.

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

 

[Nicea325]

It doesn’t. It also does not say that I am a 50-yr-old man. Certain facts in life are verifiable or refutable without the aid of Scripture.

My question is, does the Catholic Church refute the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” because** it holds some additional doctrine, not included in Scripture**, as also necessary for one’s salvation (contrary to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura)?

If so, what is that “necessary belief” that everyone must also have, in order to be saved? And where is the necessity of this particular additional belief taught by the Church?

If you mean the Church is an infallible interpreter of Scripture, that premise does not refute or conflict with Sola Scriptura.

Yep! The canon of the NT Scripture. Where is that in the Bible? Or is the canon still open as we speak today?

SS has been refuted a million times over and it has been shown SS is bogus. Tell me, is SS a doctrine or a principle? Countless of SS followers all claim something different. How can something so vital as SS be open for question, if it is adoctrine?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Forever,

Don’t confuse Church doctrine with immoral actions of people. From the Catechism below. The Church does not error on faith and morals even with sinful humans as part of her body. You can read more here.

Isn’t it sad… when logic and reason fail, Church enemies turn to personal attacks and/or pointing fingers at sinners… aren’t we all sinners? Just plain sad.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not by a long shot!

And is it your contention, then, that everything that is deemed “essential to the faith” is held by the Church to be essential for salvation?

In your opinion,

Is the Church visible and invisible?

or

Is it only invisible?

 

[JohnPB]

SS has been refuted a million times over and it has been shown SS is bogus. Tell me, is SS a doctrine or a principle? Countless of SS followers all claim something different. How can something so vital as SS be open for question, if it is adoctrine?

Refuted? By the Church? Has the Catholic Church taken such a stand, or is this your personal opinion? Has the Church declared that SS is invalid because there is another doctrine, not in Scripture, that must also be believed for a person’s salvation? This is the core of what I am trying to resolve. Because of people’s reluctance or inability to answer this, I suspect the answer is “No.”

Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of the Church of England, as I previously posted. As a translation of the earlier Latin version, it was written in English in 1571, and it is still Anglican doctrine.

Yes, other denominations have done other things with it, used it to mean something else. I offer no apologies or excuses. I do not try to defend those other outlooks and definitions.

 

[Nicea325]

Refuted? By the Church? Has the Catholic Church taken such a stand, or is this your personal opinion? Has the Church declared that SS is invalid because there is another doctrine, not in Scripture, that must also be believed for a person’s salvation? This is the core of what I am trying to resolve. Because of people’s reluctance or inability to answer this, I suspect the answer is “No.”

Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of the Church of England, as I previously posted. As a translation of the earlier Latin version, it was written in English in 1571, and it is still Anglican doctrine.

Yes, other denominations have done other things with it, used it to mean something else. I offer no apologies or excuses. I do not try to defend those other outlooks and definitions.

Sorry,the answer is not “no” as you believe. Here is where you lack in understanding Traditions.
Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of teachings the apostles taught and trasmitted on orally through their preaching. Thus, their teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture. However, but the** mode of their transmission **is different.
St. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).

This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul.

Ah no! It is not my opinion,but a fact of life. SS means Scripture-Only and I’ll show how it is refuted with ease:

Show me where the Bible teaches everything must said and taught from the Bible-Only? No where! Show me where the Bible teaches reading the Bible will provide all that is neccessary for salvation? No where! Nor does the Bible even say it necessary to believe in Christ.

Tell me something, how do people attain salvation when one does not own a Bible?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

… does not refute or conflict with Sola Scriptura.

Yes it does…

Dei Verbum:

1. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

1. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

 

[ffg]

I love this thread, I appreciate the contributions of our non-Catholic friends.

I think with regard to the topic in general, there is a key point that has been mentioned a few times - people not on the same page.

I think the people in question though are not being defined correctly, it’s not a miss-understanding between the Catholics and the non-Catholics.

It’s between the non-Catholics themselves…

If multiple people define / use / apply the term differently, how does it stand as meaningful to any one of those people, with this knowledge? Of course, all assuming their definition or application is true.

Hopefully this helps drive people to strive to find what the Truth is, whether in the meaning and application of the term, or if the term is bogus.

And then to the bigger picture.

 

[JohnPB]

Yes it does…
“It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is what I have been asking for.

So, it’s not so much an additional doctrine in addition to what is contained in Scripture, but other tools working in concert with Scripture, that the Church holds as necessary to effect one’s salvation.

Do I understand that correctly?

 

[ffg]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is what I have been asking for.

So, it’s not so much an additional doctrine in addition to what is contained in Scripture, but other tools working in concert with Scripture, that the Church holds as necessary to effect one’s salvation.

Do I understand that correctly?

I think so, assuming you mean tradition and Church Authority as ‘not doctrine’ above.

I think of it as 3 pillars.

 

[JohnPB]

I think so, assuming you mean tradition and Church Authority as ‘not doctrine’ above.
I think of it as 3 pillars.

Well, what I’m trying to get at is an understanding of the Catholic position on the Anglican doctrinal statement, known as “sola Scriptura”. It has been paraphrased as: “The Bible contains all knowledge required for salvation.”

Sola scriptura says that only those doctrines are required that can found directly within Scripture, or indirectly by using valid logical or deductive reasoning from Scripture. Sola Scriptura refers specifically to the doctrine of salvation. It is not a denial of any other authority governing Christian life and devotion.

So, if the Church insists that belief in some other content / tenet of faith / doctrinal teaching is required, and that without that “other belief” no one can be saved, then it rejects SS.

If, however, it is only that the Church has its own methods and strategies – through the teaching authority of the Church and the validity of Sacred Tradition – for adequately and competently accessing Scriptural content, this is not a refutation of SS.

 

[pablope]

So called to Regnum Christi and the Legionaires? Nope, none of that for me or for anyone else I love. But I respect your right to believe whatever you choose.

What is Regnum Christi and Legionaires…? What are these and what is their connection to tradition? You lost me here.

I believe the teachings of the CC…handed down through the apostles…and preserved by Apostolic Tradition through the proper succession of presbyters…as exemplified by St. Paul in Gal 2:2 and Acts 13 (his ordinationprior to going on his first missionary journey).

Can you provide a connection of what you believe from the Apostles? How has apostolic tradition been preserved in your denomination? How does your pastor follow the example of St. Paul?

 

[Nicea325]

Well, what I’m trying to get at is an understanding of the Catholic position on the Anglican doctrinal statement, known as “sola Scriptura”. It has been paraphrased as: “The Bible contains all knowledge required for salvation.”

Sola scriptura says that only those doctrines are required that can found directly within Scripture, or indirectly by using valid logical or deductive reasoning from Scripture. Sola Scriptura refers specifically to the doctrine of salvation. It is not a denial of any other authority governing Christian life and devotion.

So, if the Church insists that belief in some other content / tenet of faith / doctrinal teaching is required, and that without that “other belief” no one can be saved, then it rejects SS.

If, however, it is only that the Church has its own methods and strategies – through the teaching authority of the Church and the validity of Sacred Tradition – for adequately and competently accessing Scriptural content, this is not a refutation of SS.

Okay, but who outside the CC has the authority to declare the conclusive definition or understanding of SS? Who is the one voice to declare what SS truly consists of? All orthodox doctrines were declared by the authority of the church (Catholic/Orthodox) not because of the Bible.

Can the same be said about SS?

 

[pablope]

Refuted? .

Yes, other denominations have done other things with it, used it to mean something else. I offer no apologies or excuses. I do not try to defend those other outlooks and definitions.

These other denoms where borned by using and applying SS…and don’t you think the originators of SS are responsible for the mis use and the giving rise to different denoms?

Sure, you offer no apologies and excuses…it looks like you are covering your ears and eyes so that you do not see the result of SS…instead, should you not be making an effort to correct the misuse of SS? Should it not make you mad and angry that is has been misused and led to confusion and countless denoms?

 

[Nicea325]

These other denoms where borned by using and applying SS…and don’t you think the originators of SS are responsible for the mis use and the giving rise to different denoms?

Sure, you offer no apologies and excuses…it looks like you are covering your ears and eyes so that you do not see the result of SS…instead, should you not be making an effort to correct the misuse of SS? Should it not make you mad and angry that is has been misused and led to confusion and countless denoms?

In simple layman terms: Turn the blind eye.

 

[pablope]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is what I have been asking for.

So, it’s not so much an additional doctrine in addition to what is contained in Scripture, but other tools working in concert with Scripture, that the Church holds as necessary to effect one’s salvation.

Do I understand that correctly?

This is basically similar to what I posted back in post 811:

It is the difference between having a big enough pile of bricks to build a house and having a house of bricks. Catholic teaching says written Sacred Tradition (known as Scripture) is materially sufficient: all the bricks necessary to build its doctrines are there in Scripture. But because some things in Scripture are implicit rather than explicit, other stuff besides Scripture has been handed down from the apostles. This other stuff is unwritten Sacred Tradition (which is the mortar that holds the bricks of the written Tradition together in the right order and position) and the Magisterium or teaching authority of the Church (which is the trowel in the hand of the Master Builder). Taken together, these three things are formally sufficient for knowing the revealed truth of God.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is what I have been asking for.

So, it’s not so much an additional doctrine in addition to what is contained in Scripture, but other tools working in concert with Scripture, that the Church holds as necessary to effect one’s salvation.

Do I understand that correctly?

The Catholic Church sees all three as one. In like manner of the Trinity. You really can’t look at one and ignore the others.

 

[JohnPB]

Okay, but who outside the CC has the authority to declare the conclusive definition or understanding of SS? Who is the one voice to declare what SS truly consists of? All orthodox doctrines were declared by the authority of the church (Catholic/Orthodox) not because of the Bible.

Can the same be said about SS?

As you already know, there is no “one voice” among Protestant church groups. As you also know, I have consistently identified my specific area of concern with whether the Catholic Church explicitly refutes the 1571 doctrinal statement of the Church of England, which reads:
"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. "

If the problem arises because I have confused people by using the name “sola Scriptura” to refer to this statement, I apologize. I regard it as an early (if not the earliest) English language version of SS, and it is still in effect today in the Anglican Church, regardless of any other versions that may have arisen.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is what I have been asking for.

So, it’s not so much an additional doctrine in addition to what is contained in Scripture, but other tools working in concert with Scripture, that the Church holds as necessary to effect one’s salvation.

Do I understand that correctly?

More on the matter:

VERBUM DOMINI

Tradition and Scripture

1. In reaffirming the profound connection between the Holy Spirit and the word of God, we have also laid the basis for an understanding of the significance and the decisive value of the living Tradition and the sacred Scriptures in the Church. Indeed, since God “so loved the world that he gave his only Son” (Jn 3:16), the divine word, spoken in time, is bestowed and “consigned” to the Church in a definitive way, so that the proclamation of salvation can be communicated effectively in every time and place. As the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum reminds us, Jesus Christ himself “commanded the Apostles to preach the Gospel – promised beforehand by the prophets, fulfilled in his own person and promulgated by his own lips – to all as the source of all saving truth and moral law, communicating God’s gifts to them. This was faithfully carried out; it was carried out by the Apostles who handed on, by oral preaching, by their example, by their ordinances, what they themselves had received – whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or by coming to know it through the prompting of the Holy Spirit; it was carried out by those Apostles and others associated with them who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.[56]

The Second Vatican Council also states that this Tradition of apostolic origin is a living and dynamic reality: it “makes progress in the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit”; yet not in the sense that it changes in its truth, which is perennial. Rather, “there is a growth in insight into the realities and the words that are being passed on”, through contemplation and study, with the understanding granted by deeper spiritual experience and by the “preaching of those who, on succeeding to the office of bishop, have received the sure charism of truth”.[57]

The living Tradition is essential for enabling the Church to grow through time in the understanding of the truth revealed in the Scriptures; indeed, “by means of the same tradition, the full canon of the sacred books is known to the Church and the holy Scriptures themselves are more thoroughly understood and constantly made effective in the Church”.[58] Ultimately, it is the living Tradition of the Church which makes us adequately understand sacred Scripture as the word of God. Although the word of God precedes and exceeds sacred Scripture, nonetheless Scripture, as inspired by God, contains the divine word (cf. 2 Tim 3:16) “in an altogether singular way”.[59]

1. We see clearly, then, how important it is for the People of God to be properly taught and trained to approach the sacred Scriptures in relation to the Church’s living Tradition, and to recognize in them the very word of God. Fostering such an approach in the faithful is very important from the standpoint of the spiritual life. Here it might be helpful to recall the analogy drawn by the Fathers of the Church between the word of God which became “flesh” and the word which became a “book”.[60] The Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum takes up this ancient tradition which holds, as Saint Ambrose says,[61] that “the body of the Son is the Scripture which we have received”, and declares that “the words of God, expressed in human language, are in every way like human speech, just as the word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the weak flesh of human beings, became like them”.[62] When understood in this way, sacred Scripture presents itself to us, in the variety of its many forms and content, as a single reality. Indeed, “through all the words of sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single word, his one utterance, in whom he expresses himself completely (cf. Heb 1:1-3)”.[63] Saint Augustine had already made the point clearly: “Remember that one alone is the discourse of God which unfolds in all sacred Scripture, and one alone is the word which resounds on the lips of all the holy writers”.[64]

In short, by the work of the Holy Spirit and under the guidance of the magisterium, the Church hands on to every generation all that has been revealed in Christ. The Church lives in the certainty that her Lord, who spoke in the past, continues today to communicate his word in her living Tradition and in sacred Scripture. Indeed, the word of God is given to us in sacred Scripture as an inspired testimony to revelation; together with the Church’s living Tradition, it constitutes the supreme rule of faith.[65]