Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

[suzyq_psu]

Hello there, I am new to these forums but I am struggling between my faith and that of scripture alone. I keep going back and forth, it's torturous! Anyways I came upon this, so could you refute it, please? It talks about how the church wasn't built on Peter also he has other thread talking of how Catholics were pagans turned Christians and that's where we get most of the rituals.

http://prorege-forum.com/forum_entry.php?id=11558

[Stilldreamn]

"People with closed minds do not want to hear or read the truth" (quoted from the above link, referring to Catholics.


Definately needs a mirror to remove that beam from his own eye.

I wouldn't listen to this guy, honestly. You'll find more truth on all sides, here in this forum.

[suzyq_psu]

I truly want to believe that Roman Catholicism is the way but I also need reassurance, that's why I brought it here to be refuted, for some peace of mind. My soul has been tortured with this kind of stuff for too long, so I am asking the experts.

[Stilldreamn]

Originally Posted by suzyq_psu

I truly want to believe that Roman Catholicism is the way but I also need reassurance, that's why I brought it here to be refuted, for some peace of mind. My soul has been tortured with this kind of stuff for too long, so I am asking the experts.

Since you indicate you are already Catholic, I advise you to stay there - by any definition, the RCC goes by Sola Scriptura, too. It's a matter of difference in who has the authority to interpret the meaning and intent of Scripture.

Life out here in Protestantland is not any clearer - why else would we be lurking on these forums, testing our own faiths?

Sometimes I feel like a hungry urchin, looking in a window at a well-fed, happy family.

And sometimes, not!

Peace

[onemangang]

In Regards to St. Peter
http://www.americancatholictruthsoci...arofChrist.mp3

And for some other listening pleasure here is more Servant of God Fulton Sheen

http://www.americancatholictruthsoci...cles/sheen.htm

Peace be to you!

[SteveVH]

Originally Posted by Stilldreamn

Since you indicate you are already Catholic, I advise you to stay there - by any definition, the RCC goes by Sola Scriptura, too. It's a matter of difference in who has the authority to interpret the meaning and intent of Scripture.

Sola Scriptura is not a practice or belief of the Catholic Church, so I think your comment is more than a little misleading. The Catholic Church is the authentic interpreter and guardian of the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles through Sacred Tradition. Sacred Scripture is that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing and is not exhaustive of its belilefs or practices. Sacred Tradition along with Sacred Scripture encompass the fullness of truth found in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is an Apostolic Church, not a Bible Church. The Bible came from the Church, not the Church from the Bible.

We have someone here with questions between the two, so let's please be clear and not add to their confusion.

[Stilldreamn]

Originally Posted by SteveVH

Sola Scriptura is not a practice or belief of the Catholic Church, so I think your comment is more than a little misleading. The Catholic Church is the authentic interpreter and guardian of the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles through Sacred Tradition. Sacred Scripture is that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing and is not exhaustive of its belilefs or practices. Sacred Tradition along with Sacred Scripture encompass the fullness of truth found in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is an Apostolic Church, not a Bible Church. The Bible came from the Church, not the Church from the Bible.

We have someone here with questions between the two, so let's please be clear and not add to their confusion.

I did not intend it to be misleading - my point actually was that the OP should not imagine that the Protestant claims of Sola Scriptura was an indication that Catholic teachings were not founded upon those same scriptures.

[po18guy]

Originally Posted by Stilldreamn

I did not intend it to be misleading - my point actually was that the OP should not imagine that the Protestant claims of Sola Scriptura was an indication that Catholic teachings were not founded upon those same scriptures.

I believe you have it backward. The bible is founded on the Church, not the other way round. The scriptures, as written and handed down (paradosis, or tradition), are based on the oral Apostolic teachings. The Church was founded without NT scripture, and grew for 20-30 years with absolutely no NT scripture. Zero. How did it do that? Look to the prologue of Luke (Luke 1:1-4): His prologue explains that Luke wrote the Gospel only to confirm the oral Apostolic teaching that Theolphilus had already received. Theophilus learned nothing new from scripture. He was provided only with written confirmation of the oral teaching he already had.

Everything in scripture came from within the oral tradition, otherwise the bible would not exist. Our Lord did not dictate the bible to scribes. Rather, He promised the Holy Spirit to remind the Apostles of all that He had taught them, and to teach them further (John 14:26). None of the NT was written while our Lord was speaking, or while those events were being played out, but rather, 20-30 years later. All that is in the Gospels was handed on by the oral teaching tradition (paradosis) of the Apostles. Even the Acts were written by Luke for the same purpose, but written as much as 32 years after they occurred. Since Luke was not an eyewitness, he relied solely on the Oral Apostolic Tradition.

Let's be clear: the bible is also a tradition, which simply means that it was "handed down" to us. Notice that Luke begins with "it seemed good to me" (Luke 1:3) He does not claim to be inspired, so how do we know he was? The Church, by her God-given authority, has declared it so. The bible, as a written record, is incomplete and tells us so in many places (i.e. Luke 3:18, John 20:23, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34). Since man lives on every word that flows from the mouth of God (Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4), and the bible tells us that "every word" is not in the bible, one can have only an incomplete teaching if they rely on the bible alone. Since God's Word does not return to him void (Isaiah 55:11) "every word" must be kept somewhere else. The Church.

[SteveVH]

Originally Posted by Stilldreamn

I did not intend it to be misleading - my point actually was that the OP should not imagine that the Protestant claims of Sola Scriptura was an indication that Catholic teachings were not founded upon those same scriptures.

I understand what you mean, but actually those same Scriptures were founded upon Catholic teachings, not the other way around. The books chosen to be included in the New Testament were weighed against what the Church already taught and believed according to Sacred Tradition. There were many writings circulating which were not chosen. The Church proclaimed the chosen books to be inspired based upon the truth it already held according to what it had received from the Apostles in the beginning.

While the Church, of course, did away with writings which contained error, according to its Tradition, it also had in its possession many beautiful writings which are not heretical (i.e. Clement's letter to the Corinthians) and contain truth, but it determined that they also were not inspired. We believe (and all Christians had better hope) that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in making this determination of the canon of Sacred Scripture.

To the OP's concern, however, it seems a little disingenuous that some would hold on to a collection of books determined to be the inspired word of God as their sole source of faith and yet reject the very Church that made that determination.

[po18guy]

Originally Posted by SteveVH

To the OP's concern, however, it seems a little disingenuous that some would hold on to a collection of books determined to be the inspired word of God as their sole source of faith and yet reject the very Church that made that determination.

Actually, they are holding up only 90.41 percent of inspired scripture (66 books out of 73). So, they employ their man-made authority, not only on interpretation, but on the canon as well.

[SteveVH]

Originally Posted by po18guy

Actually, they are holding up only 90.41 percent of inspired scripture (66 books out of 73). So, they employ their man-made authority, not only on interpretation, but on the canon as well.

Sad, but true.

[Della]

Originally Posted by po18guy

Actually, they are holding up only 90.41 percent of inspired scripture (66 books out of 73). So, they employ their man-made authority, not only on interpretation, but on the canon as well.

To be fair, they reject the full canon as declared by the Council of Trent in favor of the Jewish canon of the OT, formulated after the establishment of the Church by a Jewish council, which excised some of the OT books the Church has included in the canon. The original KJV included the Deutrocanonical books, but these were removed from it in later editions. Still, neither the Protestant nor the Jewish councils had the authority from God to create a canon, something they will, of course, refute.

[po18guy]

Originally Posted by Della

To be fair, they reject the full canon as declared by the Council of Trent in favor of the Jewish canon of the OT, formulated after the establishment of the Church by a Jewish council, which excised some of the OT books the Church has included in the canon. The original KJV included the Deutrocanonical books, but these were removed from it in later editions. Still, neither the Protestant nor the Jewish councils had the authority from God to create a canon, something they will, of course, refute.

Luther rejected the Greek canon of the diaspora and chose the post-Christian Jewish canon. A very odd thing to do, actually. What this does is leave a 200 year gap in scripture leading up to Christ's birth, even though our Lord said "the prophets and the law prophesied until John (the baptist)" (Matthew 11:13) So, is the Jewish/Luther canon wrong, or is our Lord a liar?

[suzyq_psu]

Thank you for your responses. We did a bible study today on John and basically got into a talk on free will. She had told me that it doesn't exist. Where in the bible does it say that we have free will? I really need an Ignatius Study Bible..when I told her that Peter was the first Pope she looked at me like I was crazy, asking me where it says that in the Bible basically saying that through Jesus ALONE is our salvation and nothing else. Anybody in KS that wants to do a Catholic Bible Study?

[suzyq_psu]

And please do explain what a canon is...no I did not go to Catholic School.