Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Standing Up]

There is no contradiction between Sacred Tradition and Scripture, so my statements do not contradict AT ALL. Sacred Tradition provides context to Sacred Scripture.

Here's your catechism wherein she admits that she may receive truths from Tradition, apart from Scripture alone.

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

IOW, there is no sense that her doctrines based on Tradition have any certainty based in/from Scripture. In fact, she says they won't.

Does this mean there are contradictions between her Tradition and her Scripture? There may well be, but a different thread. Suffice to say here that some of us believe Scripture does have all revealed truths necessary for our believing unto salvation.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Here's your catechism wherein she admits that she may receive truths from Tradition, apart from Scripture alone.

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

IOW, there is no sense that her doctrines based on Tradition have any certainty based in/from Scripture. In fact, she says they won't.

Does this mean there are contradictions between her Tradition and her Scripture? There may well be, but a different thread. Suffice to say here that some of us believe Scripture does have all revealed truths necessary for our believing unto salvation.

But when I say that there is no contradiction between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, what does that tell you? It tells me that Sacred Tradition, from whence Sacred Scripture proceded, is at least as reliable as Sacred Scripture.

 

[thecolorsblend]

But when I say that there is no contradiction between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, what does that tell you? It tells me that Sacred Tradition, from whence Sacred Scripture proceded, is at least as reliable as Sacred Scripture.

This is it. Sacred Scripture comes from Sacred Tradition but non-Catholics keep wanting to separate the two.

 

[BobRyan]

Right, because then you're going to insist that your interpretation of the Scripture is correct. Scripture is correct, but Scripture comes from Tradition.

This is it. Sacred Scripture comes from Sacred Tradition but non-Catholics keep wanting to separate the two.

So helpful to see scripture hammering tradition

Mark 7:6-13

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


This is why Mark 7 comes up so often - because remarks such as those at the top of this post are flying right in the face of the lesson we all see being demonstrated for us by Christ in Mark 7.

 

[BobRyan]

Heresy is heresy. But LDS cannot provide anything more than 300 years old.

The error of the LDS has nothing to do with how old their teaching is. The Jews were happy to point to the early Christian church "as new" -- if that hollow argument alone were enough to rightly condemn the Christians - we would all have a different religion today. It was not.

Some of the oldest teachings on the planet about Mithra - are pure error. But we do not claim they are "truth" simply because they are "older than LDS teaching" - and I think we all know that.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The error of the LDS has nothing to do with how old their teaching is. The Jews were happy to point to the early Christian church "as new" -- if that hollow argument alone were enough to rightly condemn the Christians - we would all have a different religion today. It was not.

Some of the oldest teachings on the planet about Mithra - are pure error. But we do not claim they are "truth" simply because they are "older than LDS teaching" - and I think we all know that.

Your point? Mine was heresy is heresy.

 

[Rick Otto]

So what? That means little to nothing. I know lots of "Catholic" religion teachers who do so improperly. Many given the thumbs up by dioceses. Plus I never claimed to be a theologian. You don't impress me much, with your 'knowledge' of Catholicism. You're obviously very rusty. You may be more knowledgeable than the average Catholic, but that's not saying a whole lot. Sorry, back at you.

That, all by itself, is a pretty scathing review.

 

[Rick Otto]

Your point? Mine was heresy is heresy.

I'm gonna take a wild stab and say his point carefully hidden, was that age of a teaching doesn't make it true.

 

[Standing Up]

But when I say that there is no contradiction between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, what does that tell you? It tells me that Sacred Tradition, from whence Sacred Scripture proceeded, is at least as reliable as Sacred Scripture.

That is the claim that they are both reliably truth. But that is not to say that one is found necessarily in or supported by the other. Nor is it to say they are in fact both reliably true. For example, the claim "85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome." is simply found in RC Tradition and of course, not in Scripture. That she wants to believe it is her right, but certainly many disagree and see mounds of contradictions.

So, many of us stick with Scripture as our rule of faith. It is sufficient for all things salvific. We cannot improve on the apostles (Irenaeus c195ad).

 

[Root of Jesse]

That, all by itself, is a pretty scathing review.

No worse than in Protestant circles...in my experience, anyway.

 

[thecolorsblend]

That is the claim that they are both reliably truth. But that is not to say that one is found necessarily in or supported by the other. Nor is it to say they are in fact both reliably true. For example, the claim "85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome." is simply found in RC Tradition and of course, not in Scripture. That she wants to believe it is her right, but certainly many disagree and see mounds of contradictions.

So, many of us stick with Scripture as our rule of faith. It is sufficient for all things salvific. We cannot improve on the apostles (Irenaeus c195ad).

With stretching and contortions like that, you could win a gold medal in gymnastics.

 

[BobRyan]

Root of Jesse said: ↑
Heresy is heresy. But LDS cannot provide anything more than 300 years old.

The error of the LDS has nothing to do with how old their teaching is. The Jews were happy to point to the early Christian church "as new" -- if that hollow argument alone were enough to rightly condemn the Christians - we would all have a different religion today. It was not.

Some of the oldest teachings on the planet about Mithra - are pure error. But we do not claim they are "truth" simply because they are "older than LDS teaching" - and I think we all know that.

Your point? Mine was heresy is heresy.

Indeed error is error - no matter how old or young.

 

[Rick Otto]

With stretching and contortions like that, you could win a gold medal in gymnastics.

They have to stretch and contort to cling to tradition, but infallibility keeps them "above" competition.

 

[Rick Otto]

This is it. Sacred Scripture comes from Sacred Tradition but non-Catholics keep wanting to separate the two.

Non-Catholics recognise the separation that exists.
Catholics throw all terminology into a blender.

 

[TheDag]

There is no contradiction between Sacred Tradition and Scripture, so my statements do not contradict AT ALL. Sacred Tradition provides context to Sacred Scripture.

Thats not what the OP said so there is the division and as the OP argued any signs of division means bad fruit and therefore wrong. Wonder if the OP really thought that through very well that another catholic would say the opposite.

In your opinion, which has been shown many times to be wrong.

Well perhaps they may not have changed doctrine according to their definition of doctrine. I tend to look at their practices that continued for hundreds & hundreds of years with no word from anyone in the church that it was not right and say that was their doctrine. By that method they have indeed changed their doctrine. By the catholic definition maybe not but it does mean they have major flaws in their system and don't seem to have any interest in fixing those flaws. Fancy calling people demon possessed when they need medical treatment.

But when I say that there is no contradiction between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, what does that tell you? It tells me that Sacred Tradition, from whence Sacred Scripture proceded, is at least as reliable as Sacred Scripture.

According to this and comments by the OP there is no need for tradition anymore.

 

[TheDag]

Blind is fine as the objections to ss require selective blindness.


God Himself wrote in stone.
It's a clue.

If you don't have anything constructive to add to the conversation then perhaps keep your thoughts to yourself. The OP as I said uses arguments with such massive holes you could drive a truck through them which makes it laughable. I pointed out just one of them as well as demonstrating that the assumptions the OP has made are not always correct.

 

[Rick Otto]

If you don't have anything constructive to add to the conversation then perhaps keep your thoughts to yourself. The OP as I said uses arguments with such massive holes you could drive a truck through them which makes it laughable. I pointed out just one of them as well as demonstrating that the assumptions the OP has made are not always correct.

Take your own advice.

 

[Standing Up]

With stretching and contortions like that, you could win a gold medal in gymnastics.

The point is some people believe that Tradition and Scripture are two separate sources of divine revelation. Another example is the belief in the immaculate conception. We don't find that in Scripture, but in Tradition. Do the two contradict? Maybe, but this isn't the thread to discuss, yet it makes the point.

In the meantime, some of us agree that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The point is some people believe that Tradition and Scripture are two separate sources of divine revelation. Another example is the belief in the immaculate conception. We don't find that in Scripture, but in Tradition. Do the two contradict? Maybe, but this isn't the thread to discuss, yet it makes the point.

In the meantime, some of us agree that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith.

... a belief you can only have because Sacred Tradition identifies those writings as Sacred Scripture.

 

[Standing Up]

... a belief you can only have because Sacred Tradition identifies those writings as Sacred Scripture.

No, even your Catechism disagrees with your assumption. She believes that Scripture and Tradition are two separate transmissions of God's revelation.

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

I know it's popular around here for some to assert Tradition gave us Scripture, but that's false. Again, even RC leadership disagrees with that.