The issues with Sola Scriptura

[ToBeLoved]

Why don't we just drop the act and face the fact that Sola Scriptura has a meaning and we can discuss it just like all the other discussions we have here? You can look it up. It's not some mystery or anything of the sort.

But of course doing that would spoil the "Protestants are just soooo divided on everything tsk tsk" game, wouldn't it?

Yes brother!

 

[ToBeLoved]

Nothing to see here. Really. Honest! Move along.

Is there a MOUNTAIN, or a mole hill? I mean, really.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Well, I can tell you why I heed the Bible alone; it's because Christ did. All though the four Gospels he quotes the OT, refers people to it, corrects people from it. And he reprimanded the Pharisees for adding their own traditions.

Let's not only add that, but the fact that there are how many prophecies in the Old Testament that were fulfilled in the future? Etiher someone has ESP or God kenw what was going to happen. Call me cray, zee

 

[thecolorsblend]

It's really not a complicated thing. You either beleive all of the Bible literally, being God-breathed or you do not.
Simplification is not bad. Some make something out to be so complicated what is so simple.

Good, I'm glad you agree with me that Sacred Scripture is inspired by God.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Is there a MOUNTAIN, or a mole hill? I mean, really.

Christmas.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Christmas.

How your mind thinks is a mystery.

 

[thecolorsblend]

How your mind thinks is a mystery.

But is it really though?

 

[faroukfarouk]

It's really not a complicated thing. You either beleive all of the Bible literally, being God-breathed or you do not.
Simplification is not bad. Some make something out to be so complicated what is so simple.

Part of it being God breathed is linked to its being consequently trustworthy also.

 

[ToBeLoved]

But is it really though?

How you came up with "Christmas" as a response to my question, leads me to think so. You do not find that correlation odd?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Part of it being God breathed is linked to its being consequently trustworthy also.

 

[faroukfarouk]

How you came up with "Christmas" as a response to my question, leads me to think so. You do not find that correlation odd?

A bit puzzling, yes.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Well, exactly. One thing follows on from the other.

 

[thecolorsblend]

How you came up with "Christmas" as a response to my question, leads me to think so. You do not find that correlation odd?

You're making a mountain out of a molehill a little bit, don't you think?

 

[ToBeLoved]

You're making a mountain out of a molehill a little bit, don't you think?

No. I just stated that I didn't understand your logic. You could have left it at that, but you chose to respond.

What am I doing or have I done to create a mountain out of a molehill, but answer you? It was your response 'Christmas' that made no sense. Was that not your response? You never did explain it.

 

[DJKWord]

He castigated their legalism. He also criticized their scrupulosity in following the exact letter of the Law but not adhering to the intended spirit and purpose of the Law.

Beyond that though, the Pharisees and others blithely invented new practices and expected others to live up to them (again, legalism). This is something quite apart from what traditional Christians do. From the Catechism...

Thanks for sharing from the catechism. It's very poetic, but the part at the end where they declare Scripture plus Tradition, always raises red flags, whether it's the RCC or anyone else making that claim.

I'd like to haul out three Scriptures to show you where I'm coming from:

Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, 2 “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” 3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— 6 then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment[d] of God of no effect by your tradition."

6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

The Catechism assumes that the Bible and Tradition will always harmonize. But they differ considerably about how we're saved. Hebrews, for example, says Christ sacrificed himself once for all time, whereas the RCC says our salvation is dispensed little by little, Mass by Mass.


I've had people point out verses from the NT where Paul mentions tradition. The NT was still being written at the time, and what the apostles taught by word of mouth ended up being written down, compiled, and added to the OT to make the complete Bible.

One more verse, from the all-important book of Galatians:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

This is what I find alarming about all the differences and additions. We're supposed to venerate & pray to beings other than God, we're supposed to believe you have to suffer in Purgatory despite Christ's sacrifice, that you can do certain works to reduce your time in Purgatory, and that a church, council, or man is "Infallible." Well how do I know they're infallible?

 

[thecolorsblend]

I'd like to haul out three Scriptures to show you where I'm coming from:

Your interpretations of which are called into question by your admission that the apostles taught orally at least to start.

So you and I agree that the Church carried such authority at least at one time. So that raises the question of if/when that authority was rescinded. I suppose we could also ask why that authority, once granted, would be taken away.

The Catechism assumes that the Bible and Tradition will always harmonize. But they differ considerably about how we're saved. Hebrews, for example, says Christ sacrificed himself once for all time, whereas the RCC says our salvation is dispensed little by little, Mass by Mass.

Whaaa??

This is what I find alarming about all the differences and additions. We're supposed to venerate & pray to beings other than God

Only certain people.

I would add that there is a very salient difference between "veneration" and "worship". Veneration of saints is permissible. Recommend, even. Worship, on the other hand, is for God and nobody else.

we're supposed to believe you have to suffer in Purgatory despite Christ's sacrifice

Purgatory is the cleansing of one's personal attachment to earthly desires. For some reason, this gets interpreted (by Protestants) as some kind of substitution for or replacement of Our Lord's sacrifice.

It is in fact the completion of His sacrifice. It is the process whereby this mortal puts on immortality. Nothing impure can enter Heaven. As sinners, we are impure. So in order to enter Heaven, somehow we must become purified. If we're bound for Heaven and we're impure in life, we must be made pure after death.

Frequently Purgatory is referred to as a place and I sometimes don't think that's very helpful. 1 Corinthians 3 describes a process as much as anything and that, I think, is a better way to phrase it.

I sometimes think that if Purgatory had been called Purgation, the intent might have been clearer.

that you can do certain works to reduce your time in Purgatory,

I gather you don't believe in Purgatory so I don't see why this should be a troubling notion for you.

and that a church, council, or man is "Infallible." Well how do I know they're infallible?

Men are fallible. However, the Pope, for example, is understood to be infallible under certain circumstances. When he invokes the teaching authority inherent to his office, he is speaking infallibly. That is, without risk of error. It's not a permanent condition; when Pope Francis burps, he isn't burping infallibly. Even all or most of his public statements aren't necessarily binding upon the faithful.

But when he invokes his teaching authority (which, offhand, I'm not even sure has happened yet during his papacy and I'm too lazy to to check), the faithful are obliged to listen and obey.

How do you know about this whole infallibility business? Well, Our Lord said that He would be with us always, even unto the end of the age. He also said that He would send the Comforter, the Counselor, the Holy Spirit to us. Thus it seems unlikely that He would allow the Church to fall into error. So there must be a guarantor of truth to guide the faithful. As wonderful as Sacred Scripture is, it does not discuss every possible subject. It is static and unchanging. It is perfect in what it says... but it doesn't say everything. Sacred Scripture may be silent on important issues so there must be some sort of guide for when new challenges arise in life, as they tend to do.

Further, even Protestants mostly agree that Sacred Scripture must be interpreted. All they really disagree on is who should do the interpreting. If the meaning of all sections of Sacred Scripture were self-evident, surely we would all be united as one body. But obviously we're not.

It follows that the Church is also guided in her interpretation of Sacred Scripture so that the meaning and truth of it are faithfully conveyed. In order for that to be possible, the Church must be protected from error in her understanding of the scriptures.

 

[DJKWord]

Your interpretations of which are called into question by your admission that the apostles taught orally at least to start.

How am I misinterpreting them?

Also, as I said, what the apostles taught by word of mouth, they also wrote down, whereas the RCC changed and added new ideas as the years and then centuries went on. This is the very thing Christ disapproved of and that the apostles warned against.

So you and I agree that the Church carried such authority at least at one time.

Not the RCC--the apostles. Christ granted it (the keys) to Peter--and we see it in Peter preaching to Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, then to Cornelius and the gentiles in Acts 10. Christ also grants this binding & loosing authority to all of the apostles in Matthew 18.

When the apostles died, they took it with them, and there's no basis for believing it got passed along to others. That's one reason why God provided us with the NT.

I gather you don't believe in Purgatory so I don't see why this should be a troubling notion for you.

Who says it troubles me? I can bring out other examples if you like.

Men are fallible.

Exactly! And our Creator's word doesn't stay the same because it's static; it stays the same because it is infallible. Translations and phrasings change, but the message and ideas remain in place. Remember how Jude said it was once for all delivered to us.

Further, even Protestants mostly agree that Sacred Scripture must be interpreted. All they really disagree on is who should do the interpreting.

This post is getting too long; more on this later. However I do want to bring up one other thing.

I would add that there is a very salient difference between "veneration" and "worship". Veneration of saints is permissible. Recommend, even. Worship, on the other hand, is for God and nobody else.

If you believe that, then why do you end every post with a quote extolling Mary for rescuing mankind from sin?

Mary was the advocate for sinful Eve? Mary got us out of bondage to death? Excuse me? Was she crucified for us?

Talk on...

 

[Albion]

How am I misinterpreting them?

Also, as I said, what the apostles taught by word of mouth, they also wrote down, whereas the RCC changed and added new ideas as the years and then centuries went on. This is the very thing Christ disapproved of and that the apostles warned against.

This ^ is important to say.

Catholics define Tradition in different ways, often depending on their own preferences and, sometimes, depending upon which argument they think will work best on Protestants. Theologically speaking, the opposite of Sola Scriptura is not reliance upon transmitting the same information by word of mouth.

It's different, additional, information, coming by legend or simply an alleged paper trail of opinion stated by church leaders.

 

[DJKWord]

Catholics define Tradition in different ways, often depending on their own preferences and, sometimes, depending upon which argument they think will work best on Protestants.

And this, in turn, is an important point. Scripture is not the only thing subject to interpretation.

 

[thecolorsblend]

How am I misinterpreting them?

You pointed to those scriptures concerning Our Lord speaking against the Pharisees' tradition. You go on to acknowledge that oration and Sacred Tradition formed the basis of teaching in the early Church. So either there's a paradoxical conflict between Our Lord's admonition of the Pharisees' tradition and the way the early Church taught... or there's a nuance here that needs to be made between what the Pharisees did and what the Church does today.

the RCC changed and added new ideas as the years and then centuries went on.

Such as?

When the apostles died, they took it with them, and there's no basis for believing it got passed along to others. That's one reason why God provided us with the NT.

I see. But universal literacy arguably still doesn't exist. More people are literate now than ever before but it's by no means universal. And even that is a 20th century innovation.

So how, then, could people be expected to read the scriptures if, um, they couldn't read?

Who says it troubles me? I can bring out other examples if you like.

I mention it only to say that this doctrine shouldn't bother you since you don't believe in Purgatory in the first place.

Remember how Jude said it was once for all delivered to us.

The gospel message was delivered once for and all to the saints, yes. However, there's more to living the faith than that. For one thing, what does one do to when faced with new questions of morality that was never even envisioned by prophets and apostles when they wrote the scriptures? A living, active teaching authority answers these questions for us Catholics as we move through history.

If you believe that, then why do you end every post with a quote extolling Mary for rescuing mankind from sin?

Mary was the advocate for sinful Eve? Mary got us out of bondage to death? Excuse me? Was she crucified for us?

Not crucified for us, obviously. But her act of obedience started the dominoes falling for mankind's redemption.

Rather than expound on this, I think my friend and fellow Admiralty member Root of Jesse hit the nail on the head by writing...

Protestant Zero Sum Theology:
There is one pie with only so many pieces in that pie. It’s either all Jesus or Jesus has to share slices of that pie with other entities (Pope, Mary, Saints, priests). If the Pope is important, he somehow takes away from
Jesus. If Mary is important, she must be taking something away from Jesus. This is the zero-sum problem. It’s all about addition and subtraction: zero sum.

Catholic Participation Theology:
Christ as a Divine Person of the Trinity can use creatures to magnify His power, grace and glory. So it’s not about addition or subtraction, but about multiplication. The Pope doesn’t subtract from Christ. His office participates within Christ. Mary doesn’t subtract, instead her “soul magnifies theLord.”

Very well said, in my opinion. Honoring Our Lady takes nothing away from Our Lord's singular, perfect sacrifice. Her role and her importance do not somehow diminish Our Lord's role and His importance. The two participate in the same objective (eg, the redemption of the human race) but one's involvement doesn't somehow undermine the other's.

Catholics don't view it as either/or.