Sola Scriptura...

I have been thinking about the idea of Solla Scriptura and was last night reading an article on another website (not catholic) which agreed with the principle. The basic idea was that the Bible being the inerrant word of God is the source to turn to when discerning whether something is true or not…biblical or unbiblical. The author explained that the idea wasn’t against traditions per se (ie ones that had been passed down through the generations orally etc) more, the bible should be the final word on whether or not to follow said traditions.

Sure in some sense this means that the Catholic Church believe in sola Scriptura, comparing everything to the Bible to check whether its biblical or not (note I am not saying it has to be IN the bible specifically just not to go against the Bible). Obviously if indeed the Catholic Church is Christs one true church and is therefore protected against the evils of hell, I can’t imagine the following happening but just for the sake of illustration say something was “taught” that was completely against the Bible - I am guessing catholics would know this was the case and not believe it. Thereby in someway following sola Scriptura.

Take converts for example, they join the Catholic Church based on their understanding of the bible and belief that the Catholic Church is the only church to follow the true biblical traditions…?

So maybe the difference is not in sola Scriptura per se…but interpretation of the bible/understanding. For example Protestants say praying to Mary is unbiblical, catholics say it is biblical. Both are basing their beliefs and understanding on the Bible…

Thoughts?

Hi,

I understand where you are coming from but you have to see that we can’t get anywhere based on the Bible alone. Look at Protestantism. They believe in sola scriptura and there are 33,000 denominations all saying they interpret the Bible the correct way. Do you think all of them are right?

In 2 Peter, St. Peter tells us that “There are some things in [the Scriptures] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” We need the apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church to interpret the Bible correctly for us in line with 2,000 years of apostolic tradition.

Did you know that the New Testament was not formally compiled until about AD 300? What were they relying on until then? The early Catholic Church relied on the apostolic tradition of letters and oral word from the apostles who Christ anointed to go and preach the Gospel. That is why so many times in the letters of St. Paul he reminds readers to “hold fast to the traditions you have been taught” or to listen to the “oral tradition”

Yes, the Bible is the final public revelation of God to man. But, everything God has revealed to man is not inside the 73 books of the Bible. St. John in his Gospel tells us that “there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” There is a lot more that was revealed to us than what is in the Bible alone. This is continued and held by the apostolic tradition whether in the writings of the early Church fathers or written by doctors of the Church hundreds of years later, these “traditions” are necessary for the preservation of the Church and the interpretation of Scripture.

Take all of this from a former Protestant. I found within the Catholic Church the true Biblical understanding of the Bible and following of Apostolic Tradition that I could find no where else.

God bless!

One of the biggest flaws in this reasoning is that this kind of sola scripture has no way of identifying what constitutes Scripture without being entirely dependent on Sacred Tradition. So that’s one foundational difference.

Yet the RCC claims the very same as does Orthodoxy as well. Either every faith is wrong or they are all right to some degree.

Question for ya. I am not defending SS, but just interested. What foundation does Tradition have without Scripture? What I mean is in the US government we have the 3 branches of government that are there to balance one another. Well that is in a perfect world. lol I believe that Scripture cannot stand alone, yet Tradition needs Scripture to back it up. Tradition alone cannot stand.

The 3 legged stool.

Sola Scriptura is good, until it becomes a means of trying Christianity all by yourself.
What Sola Scriptura often refers to is the Bible minus the Church from which it came.
Tota Scriptura (All of Scripture) is also very handy. For example, one of the passages
that the Catholic Church sees Marian intercession if in the Wedding of Cana.

Protestants hold no meaning to Mary’s role. Here’s what Catholicism sees**:** Eve urged
Adam to commit the first Grave Sin, while Mary urged Jesus to perform his first Glori-
ous Act. Jesus said that it was not yet his hour (time to draw attention to himself by
means of miracles), so whose hour was it? It was Mary’s hour! Protestants tend to
think too much attention is given to Mary, while the only thing we see Mary doing
is telling us to “Do whatever he (Jesus) tells you.” Not to mention we see (at least
on three occasions) the Queen Mother (Mother of the King) in the Old Testament
acting as an intercessor to the King of Israel. No connection to Mary and Jesus?
Who’s the one using Sola Scriptura here?

All Catholic teaching is connected to the Scriptures, but what happens when
Protestants claim “Sola Scriptura” against the Catholic Church is more like
“Whatever I Need It To Mean” Scriptura.

Let’s now find the True Church using “Scripture Alone”:youtube.com/watch?v=MZ5tEzXxSvs

Best explanation I have found is the following from DelsonJacobs, on another thread.

*Correct me if I am wrong but most Evangelical subscribe to a theology that basically holds that “true” religion is based on what is written in the inspired Scriptures. The Bible is the authority, and what is believed is usually based and sometimes limited to what is inscribed therein. This is like a “cart before the horse” scenario that can cause one to ask questions that don’t actually apply.

To illustrate: Judaism, like Catholicism, was already a functioning system of worship with faithful members and a liturgy before and during the production of their Scripture texts and their collection or canonizations. Abraham did not have a Bible to base his religion on. He had an ongoing theophany, one which the entire nation of Israel ended up having through Moses at the foot of Mount Sinai. Their religion came first, and faithful followers of that religion composed their Scriptures.

Orthodox Christians and Catholics hold a similar view of Christianity. Their religion, while including a strong faith in the Hebrew Scriptures, was based on what they believed was an epiphany. The texts that later became the New Testament are a reflection of Christianity, not its basis, which was a Jesus of Nazareth. By the time the epistles and gospels were composed the movement already was on its way, and a functioning liturgy and creeds existed for a century before the question of canonization of these texts even arose.

While not arguing the validity of the Evangelical or Fundamentalist stand, at least for Jews and Catholics the Scriptures are a product of the religious systems that produced them, indivisible from the practices and traditions that formed them.

That being case, one doesn’t ask what authority holy writ has on a given subject in Judaism. Jews accept holy writ because it comes from the religion revealed to them from Heaven. The religion itself is “inspired,” to use the Christian term, therefore its message, which includes holy writ, is generally accepted as inviolate.

Were one to require that the texts of Judaism be subjected to the demands of some sola scriptura-believing Christians would also demand that Judaism be incapable of existing in any true form until all its Scriptural texts were composed. This would not be possible for without the Jews to write them there would be no Scriptures to begin with.

True religion cannot be based on the Scriptures alone for the Scriptures would not have been composed without the truth being practiced to begin with. *

You got this one right…I will share with you this article to further highlight this point:

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

The Bible is only considered the inerrant written word of God because the Catholic Church said so. Any written document cannot be, in and of itself, an authority, but rather a resource. Jesus gave his authority to decide matters of faith and morals to his Apostles. Indeed, he never asked them to write Gospels or Epistles. The only book of the NT that Jesus commanded be written was Revelation. Jesus commissioned his Apostles to go into the whole world to baptize and to teach. Most of what the Apostles taught was given orally. We only have the NT because some of them wrote down their teachings. We know what is true based on what the Magisterium of the Church (all the bishops of the Church in union with the pope) declares true. They definitely look to the Bible for guidance, but they also pray and rely on the Holy Spirit’s guidance, fulfilling Jesus’ promise that his Church would be guided into “all truth.”

Sure in some sense this means that the Catholic Church believe in sola Scriptura, comparing everything to the Bible to check whether its biblical or not (note I am not saying it has to be IN the bible specifically just not to go against the Bible). Obviously if indeed the Catholic Church is Christs one true church and is therefore protected against the evils of hell, I can’t imagine the following happening but just for the sake of illustration say something was “taught” that was completely against the Bible - I am guessing catholics would know this was the case and not believe it. Thereby in someway following sola Scriptura.

I’m afraid not. :slight_smile: The Bible is a part of Sacred Tradition of which the oral teachings passed down through the Church, the Early Church Fathers and the living Magisterium is also a part. The Bible was compiled by the Church so that all its dioceses and parishes would be using the same texts in the Church’s liturgies (the prayer life of the Church), as well as for study and private devotion. The Bible is not primarily a theological work, in the sense that it doesn’t list what we are to believe. It’s a resource not an authority.

Take converts for example, they join the Catholic Church based on their understanding of the bible and belief that the Catholic Church is the only church to follow the true biblical traditions…?

Not for me, it wasn’t. I had such a one-sided impression of what I should believe from being a member of a Bible-only faith community that I couldn’t trust the Bible. I didn’t realize at that time that the so-called Bible-only beliefs were actually men’s interpretations based on their own presumptions and not on what the Bible actually teaches. It was like feeling your way in the dark until I understood that God gave his Church the authority to decide faith and morals. That the Church, not the Bible is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1Tim.1:3).

So maybe the difference is not in sola Scriptura per se…but interpretation of the bible/understanding. For example Protestants say praying to Mary is unbiblical, catholics say it is biblical. Both are basing their beliefs and understanding on the Bible…

Thoughts?

Catholics do not base their beliefs on the Bible. Rather, the Bible is a witness to the truths taught by the Church. Protestants who reject Marian teachings aren’t doing so because of what the Bible says but because they simply don’t want to be believe them. They use the Bible as a proof text for finding what they already want/don’t want to believe. That’s the wrong use of the Bible, which is why they can’t agree among themselves about many major issues such as Mary’s place in God’s plan of salvation, the necessity of baptism, or even the divinity of Christ.

You got this the other way around…Tradition came first before Scripture. The foundation of Scripture is Sacred Tradition.

mark-shea.com/tradition.html

Nope. It simply acted as a lens and refocused the light of Scripture so that something which had been hidden there was now visible. For, despite appearances, the dogmatic definitions of the Church do not just pop up with absolutely no relation to Scripture. Rather, they assemble the materially sufficient revelation of Scripture using the mortar of Sacred Tradition. And that Tradition is not separate, secret and parallel to Scripture, but the common teaching, life, and worship of the Church.

Hey friend!

I see it more as the 3 legged stool

scripture, tradition and reason.

Take one away and the stool falls.

Oh I agree with you…:thumbsup: except for the reason part…:wink:

You do have a magisterium also…you just do not call it a magisterium.

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

Aquinas believed that faith in Christ necessarily involves trusting the Church, because Christ cannot fail to guide and protect the development of His Church.

I came to see that I did not fully trust Christ, not because I thought Him untrustworthy, but because I had not understood that Christ founded a visible hierarchically organized Body of which He is the Head, and which He has promised to protect and preserve until He returns. I had not apprehended the ecclesial organ Christ established through which the members of His Body are to trust Him. I came to see that faith in Christ is not something to be exercised invisibly, from my heart directly to Christ’s throne, as though Christ had not appointed an enduring line of shepherds. Inward faith was to be exercised outwardly, by trusting Christ through those shepherds Christ sent and established. Jesus had said, “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”29

This is the sacramental conception of faith, not simply belief that, but belief through. This is the sacramental conception of the Church, the basis for the priest speaking in persona Christi.

But upon coming to understand that Christ founded a visible hierarchically organized Body of which He is the Head and which He promised to preserve, I came to see that the way to trust Christ is to trust His Church of which He is the Head, just as the early Christians trusted Christ precisely by trusting the teaching of the Apostles. Trusting the Apostles did not subtract from (or compete with) their trust in Christ. On the contrary, when Jesus tells the Apostle Thomas, “Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed,”30 He implies that greater faith is required and shown in those who trust in Christ not by seeing Him, but by believing the testimony of the Apostles. Jesus refers to this way of believing when He prays, “I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word.”31

As posted on another thread…a catholic guy gave me a grade of 66.66666%. Said that was below 70 which is a failing grade. I told him it depended on the grading cruve he was using. :smiley:

So we both agree on Scripture…we both agree of tradition…as we agree on reason. Just not in the same way.

The OP is asking about how the Catholic Church sees the Bible, not if reason is used in determining matters of faith and morals. Of course the Church’s hierarchy uses reason. But the only reason it has the authority to determine what aligns with Sacred Tradition and what does not is because Christ gave that authority to his Apostles and their successors, not simply because what seems reasonable to them. It is the Holy Spirit who ensures the Catholic Church remains faithful to Christ’s teachings. One tool the Church uses, which that the Holy Spirit gave to it by inspiring the Bible’s writers, is the Bible.

Yes. The 33,000 denominations of Protestantism ARE wrong. They are right to some degree because they have Scripture but they lack the true interpretation of Scripture.

I have read once that if you take the entire early church fathers and extract Scripture verses from it, the entire New Testament could be rewritten except maybe 6 verse. I don’t know if that is true or not but the sacred tradition is the teachings of the apostles that they were taught by Christ. Without Scripture, you still have these writings of the Early Church Fathers there which teach what Scripture teaches and expand upon it.

See but the CC doesn’t only claim to be right on everything ,but as Tim Staples states, I dare you find any flaws with the Church teachings, not see what person x, or person y is doing, no with the Church teaching and the Church will always be right. From Morality, the Sacraments, the supremacy of the Pope, Apostolic Succession, the Virgin Mary, the Church will always get it right because Jesus with his blood, started the Church and he will not let it fail.

Sorry you feel that way. :slight_smile:

I have read once that if you take the entire early church fathers and extract Scripture verses from it, the entire New Testament could be rewritten except maybe 6 verse. I don’t know if that is true or not but the sacred tradition is the teachings of the apostles that they were taught by Christ. Without Scripture, you still have these writings of the Early Church Fathers there which teach what Scripture teaches and expand upon it.

I have no problem with Tradition is it plays a equal role in my Church as well. Those that would object are the ones that discard Tradition completely.

I would agree with the majority of what you said. :thumbsup:

LOL. I am a former Baptist. I find that 33,000 denominations which all say they are right because they interpret the Bible the best is a very strange thing and concept.

We need tradition which was sadly rejected by Luther to make up for his failed doctrines that also led him to not only reject tradition but try and eradicate the deuterocanonical books from the canon as well as many New Testament books with non-protestant beliefs like James, Hebrews, Revelation, among others.

You are Protestant, are you not? In what ways does Tradition play an equal role in your church? Tradition points to catholicism so…

God bless!

To keep with the same theme…LOL. I am a former Catholic! :slight_smile:

We need tradition which was sadly rejected by Luther to make up for his failed doctrines that also led him to not only reject tradition but try and eradicate the deuterocanonical books from the canon as well as many New Testament books with non-protestant beliefs like James, Hebrews, Revelation, among others.

Sounds like you need to refresh up on Lutheranism. :thumbsup:

You are Protestant, are you not? In what ways does Tradition play an equal role in your church? Tradition points to catholicism so…

Glad you asked. As an Episcopalian…I am Catholic and Reformed. :slight_smile:

Tradition plays a wonderful role in the Episcopal Church. We have Tradition to take for the Creeds…etc :thumbsup:

God bless!

God bless you as well good sir!

If that is true, then Jesus did not build a very impressive Church, did he?

The Catholic Church is not wrong to some degree. It is prevented by God from teaching error to any degree in matters of faith and morals.

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.