Hey RNRobert, your points are being challenged ...


#1

You made some outstanding points in your thread entitled “Why I rejected Sola Scriptura”. I borrowed some of your points and was challenged on the following one …

  • … many people in ancient times were illiterate, so the only way for them to hear the Gospel was to go to church and hear it preached. BTW, while I’m at it, I’d like to explode the Protestant myth that “the Catholic Church kept the Bible in Latin so ordinary people couldn’t read it.” As I said, the ordinary people were largely illiterate to begin with. Secondly, schools of the Middle Ages (and for a few centuries thereafter) taught Latin as part of their curriculum, so anyone who could read could read Latin. Also, numerous vernacular translations of the Bible were in existence long before Luther & Co. came along …*

This is wholly disingenuous. The Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14 states: “We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue”

If “anyone who could read could read latin” why would this Canon have been conceived in the first place?

Furthermore, in 1564, Pope Pius IV stated, “Since experience teaches that, if the reading of the Holy Bible in the vernacular is permitted generally without discrimination, more damage than advantage will result because of the boldness of men, the judgment of bishops and inquisitors is to serve as guide in this regard. Bishops and inquisitors may, in accord with the counsel of the local priest and confessor, allow Catholic translations of the Bible to be read by those of whom they realize that such reading will not lead to the detriment but to the increase of faith and piety. The permission is to be given in writing. Whoever reads or has such a translation in his possession without this permission cannot be absolved from his sins until he has turned in these Bibles…”

Thirdly, a number of Bible translations were included in the Index of Forbidden Books (Index Librorum Prohibitorum), first published in 1559

It is a well established historical fact that the RCC burnt Bibles so that the laity could not read them.

RNRobert, or anyone … any replies to these counter-points?


#2

[quote=Sir Knight]You made some outstanding points in your thread entitled “Why I rejected Sola Scriptura”. I borrowed some of your points and was challenged on the following one … RNRobert, or anyone … any replies to these counter-points?
[/quote]

I can give you a responce to a couple points. As to the Catholic church putting Biblical books on the list of Forbidden books and burning Bibles: During some of the Moorish invasions (especially throughout Spain) one of the tactics used by invaders to convert people to their religion was to mingle some of the teachings of their holy books (such as the Koran) along with the Scriptures. These would then be distributed (as best as can be done considering no printing press) among the masses. These were the Bibles that were rounded up and burned. These also were the versions that were put on the list of Forbidden books. So for this person to say that it is a historical fact that Bibles were burned to prevent the laity from reading them is at best a half truth. The Church definately did not want those Bibles read because they were tainted with outside material. Now what self respecting protestant can blame the Church for that? :wink:


#3

Two other points have also been challenged …

  • … Nowhere in the Bible is it written “The Bible, and the Bible alone, shalt thou take as thy sole rule of faith.” Instead, we are told that it is the Church which is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15). St Paul tells the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15). How do we know for sure all what Paul taught by word of mouth? For that matter, how do we know that the Pauline epistles included in the New Testament are the ONLY ones he wrote? … *

There is no reason to require that the Bible say this. It is a matter of prudence that we rely upon the Word of God as sufficient to establish matters of doctrine since it contains all matters necessary for salvation and spiritual life. Sola scriptura does not claim that everything that Jesus or Paul ever said is written in the Bible. This is irrelevant to the issue. Merely because not everything Jesus said was written down is not a licence to imagine that any tradition must be one of those sayings that were not written down.

Nor does 2 Thess 2:15 give any warrant for this. Context is important. The Thessalonian Church had been misled by a forged letter which purported to come Paul telling them that the Day of the Lord had already come. Paul is merely saying hold fast to what I preached to you directly or what I have written to you which can be discerned by his distinguishing mark (2 Thess 3:17). Clearly the media is unimportant if you can be sure (and certainty was the key point) that this was in fact apostolic teaching. The issue is how can we be sure, 2000 years later, that a purely oral tradition has been infallibly preserved. This is not the same as the Thessalonian church holding on to what they have been taught directly by Paul. Anyone who has the played the game of Chinese whispers understands this point perfectly.

… and …

  • … The Apostle John tells us twice in his Gospel (20:30, 21:25) that not all the things that Jesus said and did were written down. Were those words and deeds any less important because they weren’t? Keep in mind this was primarily an oral culture. … *

What is interesting is that when the Gnostics argued their doctrine from oral tradition and were in turn refuted from scripture by the defenders of orthodoxy.

What is also interesting is that even though they were taught by apostles the Bereans were commended for checking all that they were taught against scripture (OT in that case) (Acts 17:11) “These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so”.


#4

[quote=Sir Knight]You made some outstanding points in your thread entitled “Why I rejected Sola Scriptura”. I borrowed some of your points and was challenged on the following one

"This is wholly disingenuous. The Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14 states: “We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue”

If “anyone who could read could read latin” why would this Canon have been conceived in the first place?
RNRobert, or anyone … any replies to these counter-points?
[/quote]

That particular ban was in relation to the Albigensian/Cathar Heresey in Provence and surrounding regions. Cathar “perfects” whould selectivly quote from scripture to bolster their beliefs in a (evil) demiurge who created the physical universe, a non-corporeal Christ who really wasn’t crucified, reincarnation, the corruptness of matter and other Cathar beliefs. Of course, a Cathar directed translation would be very supportive of these errors. Ask your Protestant friends if this was a legitimate use of scripture or translation of such?

And the ban was only very regional, it only applied in the area where the Cathars were active. There is and never has been a general ban on lay Catholics reading approved translations of Scripture


#5

[quote=Sir Knight]You made some outstanding points in your thread entitled “Why I rejected Sola Scriptura”. I borrowed some of your points and was challenged on the following one … RNRobert, or anyone … any replies to these counter-points?
[/quote]

Sure, this restriction was primarily a reaction to the Albagensian Heresy, which used their own version of a vernacular bible. They claimed to be “bible” Christians, and many fundamentalists to this day claim some empathy with this cultic group. The Church’s provisions against vernacular translations what exactly because of the “boldness of men”. Some men will not treat the deposit of faith with the respect that it deserves, and will use it as licence to create their own wild salvation schemes. THe reason that heresy was such a danger in the middle ages is because the local rules maintained that their authority to rule was divinely ordained. If someone challenged this notion, they challenged the rulers right to rule. So heretics were also considered guilty of treason. The Albagensians were particularly scandalous because included in their belief system was that all flesh was evil, therefore marriage, with its primary purpose of procreation created more evil flesh to imprison souls, fornication was okay because that is what our evil flesh is bound to do, and ritualistic suicide was encouraged, and assisted if the matter was rejected by a convert. Can you imagine the disruption to society if these beliefs were to take hold and spread? This whole belief system was the reason for the creation of the first Inquisition.


#6

[quote=Sir Knight]Two other points have also been challenged
*… Nowhere in the Bible is it written “The Bible, and the Bible alone, shalt thou take as thy sole rule of faith.” Instead, we are told that it is the Church which is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15). St Paul tells the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15). How do we know for sure all what Paul taught by word of mouth? For that matter, how do we know that the Pauline epistles included in the New Testament are the ONLY ones he wrote? …

*“There is no reason to require that the Bible say this. It is a matter of prudence that we rely upon the Word of God as sufficient to establish matters of doctrine since it contains all matters necessary for salvation and spiritual life.”

Lets see, “there is no reason ::because:: It is a matter of prudence”–Oh, of individual interpretation, of judgement, of dicernment. Martin Luther lived to rue that one, when milk maids would dispute him on the meaning of scripture. And the Zwinglians broke his heart in saying the Eucharist was just a memorial. And all sides claimed the 'inspiration of the Spirit". Material sufficiency of scripture is not the same as Formal Suffiency (the ability for Scripture to always give a clear statement that can be unambigiously interpreted–little or no room for error by any reasonably intelligent person)

“Sola scriptura does not claim that everything that Jesus or Paul ever said is written in the Bible. This is irrelevant to the issue. Merely because not everything Jesus said was written down is not a licence to imagine that any tradition must be one of those sayings that were not written down.”

Holy Tradition is never in conflict, and is supported, at least in seminal form ,in Scripture

[/quote]


#7

First off, many thanks to Apologia and Lion of Narnia for answering some of Sir Knight’s questions. I will add to what they wrote and answer the others as best I can.

Bible Burning: Part of the reason for banning Bible reading was to combat the Albigensian heresy as already mentioned. Another reason was that at the time of the Reformation there were a number of Bibles that were considered bad because they were poor translations. For instance, there was the ‘wicked’ Bible that has the word “not” omitted from Exodus 20:14, so that it reads “Thou shalt commit adultery”; the ‘murderers’ bible that has “But Jesus said unto her, let the children first be killed” (instead of ‘fed’); the ‘vinegar’ Bible, which substitutes ‘vinegar’ for ‘vineyard’ in the parable of the vineyard, ‘He’ and ‘She’ Bibles from the mixing up of the pronouns in the book of Ruth, and other errors ad nauseaum. Other Bibles (like Wycliff’s) had notes that attacked the Catholic Church. Since the Bible is a CATHOLIC book, the Church reserves the right to protect it’s property just like any publisher would pursue someone who violated copyright laws. Also, the Catholic Church, being the One Church that Christ founded, has not only the right, but the DUTY, to protect her flock from pernicious and false teachings.
Scripture and Tradition- As it has already been pointed out, Scripture and Tradition will never contradict. In Dei Verbum (one of the Vatican II documents) The church considers itself the SERVANT of Scripture. The Church herself says that public revelation ended with the death of the last Aopstle, and she can neither add to or take away from the deposit of revelation left by them. The ‘new’ doctrines she proclaims do not contradict Scripture, and are simply a greater understanding of what has been handed down. For instance, the doctrine of the Trinity (accepted by almost all Protestants) wasn’t declared until 325 AD. It wasn’t a ‘new’ doctrine, but simply declaring as true what was implicit in the NT and tradition.
Continued next post…


#8

Furthermore, I think the term ‘sola scripturist’ is bogus. Very few people approach the Scriptures from a purely neutral standpoint. They read it into their own faith traditions, whether they be Anglican, Baptist, Calvinist, Lutheran, Pentecostal or whatever. This is why even though although all these groups, even though they claim to follow the Bible, cannot agree on things like the nature of the sacraments, free will vs. predestination, church worship, governance, etc.(and many sects even use the Scriptures to deny the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, etc). St. Paul writes in Galatians 1:8 “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.” This is verse is loved by Protestants and is often used by them to attack Catholic beliefs. But here is the problem. I wasn’t in Galatia that day he preached the gospel. Which ‘gospel’ did he preach? There are thousands of sects out there preaching the ‘gospel’ but they are contradictory. Which gospel is closest to Paul’s? But I digress.
I also find it interesting that some of the sects who scream the loudest about Catholic ‘traditions of men’ have no problem imposing their own ‘traditions’ that have little or no Biblical basis: i.e. forbidding the use of alcohol, tobacco, caffeine; forbidding dancing, card games, television; I’ve even heard of some sects that have dress codes for their members (i.e., no pants for the women, long sleeve shirts only for the men), Speaking of tradition, most Protestant churches believe in the Trinity and some even have it in their name (like the Trinity Broadcasting Network). Where, pray tell, can you find the word ‘Trinity’ in the Bible? As I said above, the doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t formulated until 325 AD. Protestants who use it are implicitly accepting the teaching authority and Tradition of the Catholic Church. Same goes for worshipping on Sunday? Where is it written that it was Ok for Christians to start worshipping on a Sunday instead of the Jewish Sabbath. I almost became a Seventh Day Adventist on this point (but that’s another story). While there are verses that would indicate the Jewish Sabbath was no longer binding (Acts 20:7, 1 Cointhians 16:2, Romans 14:5, Galatians 4:11, Colossians 2:16-17) there is nothing definitive in Scripture that says Christians moved the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. So once again, Protestants are implicitly accepting Catholic tradition.

Sorry for being so long winded. I hope I have been of some help, and please feel free to ask if you have any more questions. :slight_smile:


#9

I forgot one other thing. Regarding the Gnostics, from what I understand, the ‘tradition’ they were using wasn’t the Sacred Tradition that was accepted by the Church and Early Fathers, but their own ‘secret’ tradtion, that only ‘they’ knew.


#10

Question:

What is this Protestant forum? Maybe I can give my :twocents: worth.

Jorge :eek:


#11

Could use some biblical / historical back-up on the following threads … [list]
*] 3 “cults”: the three stooges of satan! (the Catholic church is accused of bing one of those stooges)

*] The Papacy and Peter’s Primacy

*] Life Before And After Earth

*] Regarding Catholic Authority

*] Mary, the Mother of GOD and beyond… kind of…[/list] … registration is required in order to view these offensive threads.

It isn’t a strictly protestant forum but more of a Christian forum because one of the moderators is a Catholic so we do have some support there.


#12

Sir Knight:

On the “Why I rejected Sola scriptura” thread, Bobcatholic posted what he called his “four infamous questions” and challenged Protestants to answer them using the Bible only. So far, no one has even ATTEMPTED to answer them. You might want to post them on that board. Here is his post in it’s entirety:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.