Roman Catholicism and the Bible - Sola Scriptura vs. Sola Ecclesia, part 1 of 3

Here's tremor again.

God bless you Mariano for your love of God and his Word. I'm the one who called you out to write something about this dangerous concept - sola scriptura.
I share the same sentiment as the author of 'Quod Est Veritas' comment and I'll repeat after him: come home, brother.

Martin Luther, the father of the reformation, racist and bigot, claimed that the work of the Holy Spirit Himself is limited only to man's contact with the Scripture. This heresy contradicts the Scripture Itself no matter how to interpret It! The gift of prophesy, coming from the Spirit, has been present throughout the century in the Church where it was welcomed according to the Scripture: "(19) Do not extinguish the Spirit. (20) Do not treat prophecies with contempt." (1 Tes 5:19n)

Only the Holy Spirit knows how to interpret the Bible and those who He teaches. "If the angels were capable of envy, they would envy us for two things: one is the receiving of Holy Communion, and the other is suffering." wrote St. Faustina in her diary. Those outside the Holy Roman Catholic Church won't agree. That's how the human tradition of protestantism established in XVI century lead them astray from the God who is with until the end of the world and the true means of following him.

Let us now consider what the scripture, even the New Testament alone, has to say about itself and the issue of sola scriptura:
Matthew 4:3-11, It is written…It is written…it is written…Then the Devil left Him
—this is an appeal to the authority of scripture.

I disagree with your implication here. An appeal to the authority of scripture isn’t the same as providing evidence in support of Sola Scriptura… it is really just providing evidence of the authority of Scripture... which isn't denied by Protestants or Catholics.

One might-could also say that (since they - the Devil and our Lord - were BOTH using Scripture) this is evidence of fallible private interpretation of Scripture (on the Devil's part in this case) vs infallible interpretation of Scripture by the Word Himself!

And a non-believer might just as easily say that this is evidence that the Bible contradicts itself.

Mark 7:13, Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition
—this clearly means that tradition can conflict with the text of scripture.

I don't think this is a fair comparison at all. One could simply ask: “Whose “tradition” though?” The context reveals that our Lord clearly means the tradition of the Pharisees and Scribes… “precepts of men,” “tradition of men,” and “your tradition!” He says.

The Catholic response could be that these “traditions of men” have their origin in the minds or hearts of men - they come from creatures - not God… while the (capital ‘t’) Tradition of the RCC has its origin in God - it comes from God - not creatures.

There are two different working meanings for the same word - which is why the RCC differentiates (Sacred or Holy) “Tradition” from “tradition” with the use of a capital ‘T.’

John 10:35, The Scripture cannot be broken
—this establishes tradition’s submission to the text of scripture.

How so? Our Lord appeals to Scripture which they (that were about to stone Him) presumably accepted as such, in order to demonstrate that they were in error. He certainly doesn’t explicitly say anything similar to what you are deriving. Even if your (infallible?) interpretation is correct and He is establishing “tradition’s” submission to “the text of scripture” - you still have the same problem. Sacred Tradition is not the same thing as man-made tradition.

Mark 7:6-9, This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me and in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men…laying aside the commandments of God, you hold the tradition of men…you reject the commandment of God, the you may keep your tradition
—this demonstrates that man made tradition, in this case Jewish and by extension any tradition, can conflict with the scripture to the point of contradiction and therefore, must be annulled and corrected by scripture.
And by extension ANY tradition!? Says who!? Not the Bible! Ha ha!

Again, man-made traditions can conflict with Scripture - sure, no problem there! But, if (as the RCC believes) Sacred Tradition comes from God (CCC 80) just as Sacred Scripture does - to say they can conflict is to say that God can conflict with Himself. Catholicism teaches (and I think most Protestant traditions don't believe) that God CAN contradict Himself.

Regardless, you still have the same problem - you're confusing Sacred Tradition with man-made tradition.

Matthew 22:43, He said to them, How then does David by the Spirit call him Lord
—this clearly teaches that the scripture records David’s words and David’s words were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Interesting point - though it doesn’t really address the issue of Scripture vs Tradition (it doesn’t even address Scripture vs “traditions of men.”) Ironically enough though - you might actually be quoting from a passage in Sacred Scripture that demonstrates the existence of Sacred Tradition! Ha ha! It seems that the only question that needs to be answered (in order for that to be true) is: “When were David’s words recorded?” ;)

Matthew 5:17-18, Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled
—this teaches that God’s word cannot be broken but only fulfilled (as was the Law was when Jesus paid for our sins).

Exactly!!!

Wait… maybe I misunderstood you... how are you interpreting that? ;)

Matthew 12:40, For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the huge fish
And Matthew 19:4, He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female”
—these texts demonstrate appeals to the historicity of scripture.

It’s beautiful isn’t it!? :)

Matthew 22:29, You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God
—this teaches the error of lacking knowledge of the scripture.

Maybe. I guess I don’t really disagree with your interpretation. But there ARE different ways to interpret it. I can say "-this teaches the error of..." just as easily as you can. ;)

One way to interpret it might be that they simply didn’t “know” or understand the Scriptures sufficiently, or at least not enough to avoid making an error… which could easily be a case of incorrect (fallible) private interpretation of Scripture on their part(s).

But, I believe that a more literal interpretation might be that they really didn’t KNOW what Scripture was!
Consider this… I was in a small-group Bible study once (quite a few years ago!) that pointed out that the Sadducees (who ironically, like Protestants, believed in a narrower cannon of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament than Catholics) in this case were referring to the story of the widow (who had seven husbands - all of whom died) in what you would consider “Apocryphal” writings (Tobit 3:8, 7:11, and such). And the purpose of asking the question of Him that they did - was to attempt to force Him into making a contradiction between Moses (Duet 25:5) and a belief in the Resurrection that would imply acceptance of polyandry - or publicly reject the canonicity or authority of the book of Tobit. They may also have been trying to trap Jesus into identifying what “camp” He followed (who favored a small cannon like the Sadducees, - or a larger cannon like the Pharisees, Essenes, or other groups… perhaps even Hellenistic Jews) so they could debate with Him on grounds that they were familiar with.

If either of those possible intentions of the Sadducees I provided (or both) were true, His response not only makes sense - it would be extremely typical of our Lord. Often, when “creatures” tried to trap Him, He showed that their “wisdom” was infinitely inadequate compared to the wisdom of the Word Incarnate! ;) Their vain attempts to drag Him into the argument between the Sadducees and the Pharisees (and others) about what books were Inspired backfired! If they only knew they were talking to God Himself right!?

Also, you might consider this...
If your interpretation is the correct one… it might be begging a question… how had they (the Sadducees) demonstrated their “not knowing the Scriptures” at that point? Based on the fact that they asked a question? Based on the fact that they were Sadducees?
They had just referred to the Scriptures (explicitly) with their reference to the Mosaic Law about marriage(s) - so, they clearly “knew” the Scriptures to some extent. If they knew the Scriptures (which, again, they demonstrated that they did) - but not well enough… how “well” or “unwell” was their knowledge - and how can we know? It seems your interpretation may only open the door to an unresolved question.

But, putting aside what it means to commit the “error” of lacking “knowledge of the scripture” - your point still doesn’t really seem to have any bearing on the false dichotomy that is the Protestant issue of Scripture vs Tradition.

John 17:17, Your Word is truth
—this teaches the accuracy of the scripture.

True dat! Ha ha!
I don’t disagree with your interpretation here brother!
But, I will ask… why limit God’s Word to Sacred Scripture? Our Lord wasn’t even necessarily referring to Scripture in that case (He actually uses different words for “word” and “Scripture” in John 17… and the instance you quoted was not “scripture.”) In your example, He could also be teaching (or underscoring) that He (Jesus, the Christ) IS the Word, and He IS the Truth!

2nd Timothy 3:1-17, in the last days grievous times will be at hand. For men will be…lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power of it…ever learning and never able to come to the full knowledge of the truth...evil men and seducers will go forward to worse, deceiving and being deceived…
But continue in the things that you have learned and have been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from a babe you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work
—this teaches that when deceivers come along in the garb of godliness we need not follow nor fear them since it is the scripture that shows us the way to salvation and the scripture that prepares us for every good work.

Sort of… I mean, I mostly agree with your interpretation here. But, if you want to be honest to the Scriptures, I think you would have to admit that - based on this passage - the Scriptures we require that will show us the way to salvation and equip us for every good work would be limited to the Holy Scriptures that Timothy new and had learned since he was born… which would be the Old Testament. But, you don't believe that do you?

So, in order for your interpretation of this passage to mean that when St. Paul was referring to the "Holy Scriptures" (that St. Timothy is apparently well-versed in) he was referring to the entire Bible - Old Testament (the 66 books in the Protestant and modern-day Jewish cannon) and the New Testament (27 books? Agreed! Ha ha!) - you sort of have to ignore the part that says the Scripture St. Paul is explicitly referring to as being the OT don't you?

Paul had previously taught Timothy these doctrines and they then came to be written into scripture. There is no indication that Paul also taught an oral teaching that was not later written and contained within the New Testament.

What a strange way to phrase it! May I re-phrase it like so: “There is no evidence in the bible of evidence that is not in the bible.”?

There IS explicit evidence from the Bible that St. Paul transmitted the sacred traditions (remember… he literally CALLS them “traditions” - 2 Thessalonians 2:15) that he received in two forms - by word of mouth and by letter. He makes it clear that they are both to be held to… and makes no distinction between a higher authority of one over the other.

But, you’re right, there might not be any indication in Paul’s second letter to Timothy that all that all the “traditions” he’d passed on by word of mouth were not later contained in the New Testament… but then, there’s no evidence that St. Paul ever knew there would BE a New Testament, much less that his writings would be included in the future cannon of Scripture.

And what sort of “indication” could there be anyway? If there was an explicit example from Scripture of a teaching by Paul that wasn’t later written and contained within the NT… then wouldn’t that explicit example… be written... in Scripture? ;)

Maybe if St. Paul said something like, “Remember that “one thing” we were talking about Tim? Make sure you hold fast to that too.” And then later, in St. Timothy’s first letter to St. Paul, he says: “Also, what was that “one thing” you were you referring to that we must hold fast to brother Paulus?” And then that’s the last we ever heard about it - and Christians have been scratching their heads for centuries! Ha ha!

Acts 17:10-11, the brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. They, when they arrived, went into the synagogue of the Jews. And these were more noble than those of Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily to see if those things were so
—this teaches the individual’s ability and responsibility to test any teaching and test it for yourself against scripture, whether the teaching comes from any church, preacher, priest, Pope or, as in this case, apostle (or, for that matter, the Mormon prophets, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ leadership, etc.).

I sort of agree with your interpretation… as far as the individual bearing a responsibility to test things they are told against Scripture. But, then, you’re running smack up against the problem of fallible “private” interpretation here too.

I think a more literal reading of this passage from Acts could leave you with the understanding that the Bereans were praised because when the Apostles appealed to the authority of Scriptures as they taught the Gospel of our Lord - and quoted from or referred to the Scriptures (again… Old Testament ONLY right!?) - the Bereans didn’t take the Apostles’ word for it that the Scriptures said “such and such” - they looked it up for themselves.

Fact-checking everything? Now, that’s an active audience! Clearly they were inclined to receive the Truth! And if the Apostles were indeed not misquoting or being misleading with their OT references, they surely gained the respect of the Jews in Berea, and they might actually have been winning souls to Christ!

In any case, in my opinion, you’re just misunderstanding it all anyway. It’s the position of the RCC that no teaching of the RCC can conflict with Sacred Scripture. If you believe it does, then it’s simply your interpretation of either Scripture or the teaching of the Church that is the cause of the (apparent) conflict.

For my part, I'd say ask "Why should anybody believe YOU!?" After all, you’ve personally already demonstrated a pretty typical Protestant misinterpretation of the RCC’s teaching(s) about tradition/Tradition (and it’s pretty straight-forward, just check out the Catechism… paragraphs 74-100 should give you a good start!) - why should your interpretation of Scriptural teaching (about a point that is even less straight-forward) be more trustworthy?

That's not logical. If it's not logical - it can't be cohesive with the Logos - Logic Himself. ;)

But, let us say that you (or anybody) honestly search the Scriptures (again... Old Testament only though… right?) and find something that you believe conflicts with something you believe the RCC teaches - you’re right back at the problem of private interpretation.
Who’s to say whose is better?
A Catholic might very well have a different spin (and surely will) on what the Scriptures "clearly say" than you do.

It seems to me that you can either claim infallibility for your own personal interpretations (or perhaps your Protestant exegetical "traditions") that you deny the RCC - or you can say "All interpretations are equally true!" - or you can just point up to the sky and say “Only God knows!” :)

...

...

If that's the case... why not just come home to the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"? We could sure use someone like you! You're brave, you're intelligent, and you care about God! We've got plenty of people barely clinging to the name "Catholic" who don't have a tenth of the passion for our Lord and the Truth that you do! Come home and help wake them up with the Truth and the beauty of the faith! Why are you trying to steal sheep from His flock anyway? You're not just arguing against the teachings of some "denomination" that "claims to be Christian" you know - you ARE the Pharisee - you're Saul - and you're persecuting Him! Stop it! Stop trying to argue with and defeat the Truth with Scripture - it will never work - Truth will always have an answer. And Catholicism isn't your enemy... it's your home!

Just come home man!!! :)

I can't say it will be easy - because it won't be easy - not at all. But with God, all things are possible! And think about all you have to gain! You have the Lord Himself and all that He meant for YOU to have! There's so much more than you know!!!

...

...

At the very least, you'd have a much stronger portfolio for doing apologetic work with atheists and their like. ;)

Act 20:27-32, For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears. So now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified
—Paul is not entrusting or commending the brethren whom he considers threatened to the Holy Mother Church nor the pope but to the scripture.
What? Ha ha!

Not only does he not say what you’re saying, he doesn’t even not say what you’re saying he’s not saying! Ha ha! ;)

I mean, St. Paul says that he is commending them to “God and to the word of His grace” sure enough… but you sort of have to ASSUME that when St. Paul says “word of His grace” what he really means is that he is commending them to “God and to the Scriptures (which will be composed of 66 books - some of which haven’t even been written yet) that will later be called “The Bible” and solidified into one single cannon largely through the influence of a Catholic priest named Martin Luther who will be born many centuries from now and will assist Satan in plunging Christianity into bloody chaos and bitter confusion for centuries.” Don’t ya? ;)

...

And isn't it funny, whenever I read passages like "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw disciples after themselves" it's people like your theological forefather Martin Luther that immediately come to mind. It used to be the Catholic Church that came to my mind (in some vague way - I didn't have any particular person I could point to though... except perhaps the Papacy.) But now... it's usually the early "Reformers" that come to mind. ALL of whom - you may recall... were Catholic ("from among yourselves...") ;)

...

...

...

...

And... I mean what I said above too man, why not come home to the Catholic Church?

I've only just come across your blog tonight - and I get it. I believe you and I are of the same Spirit brother. People like you excite and inspire me! You seem just as fired up for God as I am - and you seem to love Jesus at least as much as I do! I'm a young Catholic (and a convert myself) and I really do get where you're coming from... I really do.

I always feel bad when I feel like I'm not able to reach non-believers... because I was there too... and now... His love and the Truth just seem so obvious to me... why can't they hear it!? Shaking the dust from ones 'shoes' isn't a terribly easy thing to do - not for me anyway. Well, it's the same with you man - you've got Truth, but you don't have it all... and some of it is twisted. You're SO close though!

I wish you could know Him like I know Him! (I know... I know... you probably feel the same way about me.) ;)

I'm going to tell you straight-up though brother... I don't want to offend you, or provoke and angry prideful reaction, or otherwise get your feathers pricked up so that you can't hear the frequency I'm trying to help tune your radio to... but, I'm going to give it to you straight anyway, because I based on what little I know about you... I think you're tougher than all that...

Your home is in the Catholic Church.

Please... just consider it. Listen to Him - the Holy Spirit - He will guide you if you can just get yourself out of His way! And maybe then... the scales will fall from your eyes one day too. ;)

May the Peace of the Lord be with you always!

...

...

...

And I loved the response on the video about why would someone sacrifice or lay down their lives... "Love." Beautiful man. Absolutely beautiful. :)

[...] And the crazy part is, World War 3 is not the most Earth shaking event to come within the next 4 years, The Pole Shift will cause even more damage and destruction, but in the case of the Pole Shift it will be for a Good cause with Divine purpose and for humankind to experience the 1,000 years of peace it has been promised for decades. In addition you can check out this related post: http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/roman-catholicism-and-bible-sola...... [...]