Why I'm Catholic (Sola Scriptura leads atheist to Catholic Church)

Et Tu ^ | October 23, 2007 | Jennifer F.

[GoLightly]

Which is precisely what the Catholic church believes.

Dogma is given equal standing to Scripture by the Catholic church, so no, it is not precisely what the Catholic church "believes".

No article of Catholic dogma contradicts Scripture.

Some of Catholic dogma ignores the portions of Scripture that are "inconvenient".

Take Paul's instructions to Timothy (1 Timothy) about selecting Bishops & I'm not just talking about the part where Timothy is told to select men who are husbands to only one wife. I'm talking about local control in the selection. Current Catholic practice in this area has resulted in some seemingly un-Christian American bishops, leaving orthodox Catholics in their jurisdictions wondering why Rome doesn't do something to correct the situation.

I've been told that Paul wasn't establishing doctrine. According to an article in New Advent, Paul's "non-doctrinal" instructions to Timothy were close to the practice used by the Church for centuries. The only change made to Paul's instructions in the first six centuries of the Church was an additional step of confirmation of the selection by neighboring bishops. Then there's this:

He saith to them: My chalice indeed you shall drink; but to sit on my right or left hand, is not mine to give to you, but to them for whom it is prepared by my Father. And the ten hearing it, were moved with indignation against the two brethren. But Jesus called them to him, and said: You know that the princes of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that are the greater, exercise power upon them.

It shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister: And he that will be first among you, shall be your servant. Even as the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many. - Matthew 20:23-28

I don't know if the Catholic church calls bishops "princes of the Church" anymore, but I do know that it has. What part of, "it shall not be so among you", don't those at the top of the Catholic hierarchy understand?

How did the Catholic Church rationalize anointing kings in the face of the teachings to Gideon in Judges 8 and to Samuel in 1 Kings 8? Then at some point, the RCC "discovered" it had total power over the kings, based on a "new understanding" about the two swords that the Lord Jesus said would be enough.

Next we get into the Church's official positions about 2 Peter 1:20 that ignores the next verse, which is a continuation of the same thought & using Matthew 18:17 that ignores context by leaving out anything about verses that precede it.

[GoLightly]

When clearly explained it becomes obvious why Sola Scriptura must be rejected by the RCC. If you accept this it would diminish the authority of the magesterium and tradition.

Yes, of course it. Many Protestants like to ignore the part about using snippets to support positions, resulting in things like the Rapture.

[MEGoody]

Sure she did, but unlike others she actually listened to what the Holy Spirit told her.

That isn't what she says, but if that's how you want to interpret it, so be it. ;)

[papertyger]

That isn't what she says, but if that's how you want to interpret it, so be it.

It's a whole lot more charitable than making accusations against her.

[MEGoody]

It's a whole lot more charitable than making accusations against her.

LOL You can get off your high horse now.

[papertyger]

Wanna read Matthew 2:16 and tell me how he figured out it was a messianic prophecy from the context?

[papertyger]

LOL You can get off your high horse now.

It only looks that way from down where you are.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Dogma is given equal standing to Scripture by the Catholic church, so no, it is not precisely what the Catholic church "believes"."

You need to learn the difference between "dogma" and Sacred Tradition.

I've been told that Paul wasn't establishing doctrine.

Correct. This is "discipline", not "dogma" OR "doctrine".

"According to an article in New Advent, Paul's "non-doctrinal" instructions to Timothy were close to the practice used by the Church for centuries."

Even with items that are not dogma, the Church changes only slowly.

"I don't know if the Catholic church calls bishops "princes of the Church" anymore, but I do know that it has. What part of, "it shall not be so among you", don't those at the top of the Catholic hierarchy understand?"

Uh, one of the Pope's titles is "Servant of the Servants of God". I don't know of any priest or bishop who doesn't consider himself as a servant of the faithful.

"Next we get into the Church's official positions about 2 Peter 1:20 that ignores the next verse, which is a continuation of the same thought:"

You mean these:

"20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,"

"21 for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God."

This sounds like an admonition to Protestants to me?? What's your point.

"...using Matthew 18:17 that ignores context by leaving out anything about verses that precede it.

Matthew 18:17:

"If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. 14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."

Again, what's your point??

[NYer]

St. Paul's statement below, speaking of scripture, has no equal in scripture about any other authority.

An interesting choice of text. In 2 Tim. 3:14, St. Paul says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This is not true. This wouuld apply to the Deuterocanonical books, as well. According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the "pillar of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible.

Tradition is valuable, but only in as much as it is under the authority of God, communicated in his Word.

What about Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded". As we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. The Bible Itself states that their are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25). These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers "Sacred Apostolic Tradition." This type of "Tradition" never changes because it was passed down by the Apostles themselves.

[papertyger]

This means every passage of Scripture is useful. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word.

Indeed, could it not also mean Christians must observe "the Law" by virtue of Old Testament Scriptures?

[MEGoody]

It only looks that way from down where you are.

Yes, when one is not sitting on a high horse, they do tend to look at one sitting on a high horse as though that person is on a high horse. ;)

[Diva]

Interesting conversion account. My first questions while a young So. Baptist centered around the purpose of communion, the grape juice and cracker thing we would have at our church on occasion. I couldn’t for the life of me figure out why they even bothered to do it, it seemed silly. I read the Bible and talked to people and tried to understand why it was important, why would Jesus want us to remember something that seemed, excuse the expression, trite. When I began to take a look at the Catholic Church (mostly because I was intrigued by old movies like The Bells of St. Mary), and discovered that these people actually believed that there was a big point to Communion I was hooked. It took a few more years until I actually “Poped” and one of the reasons I was finally willing to offend my family was the thought that this Church has existed since the time of Jesus and so they have the experience. They’ve been around longer than the Baptists et al.

[papertyger]

It would be rather difficult for me to kick baby Christians from horseback.

You, on the other hand, are positioned perfectly ;o>

[MEGoody]

It would be rather difficult for me to kick baby Christians from horseback.

I see. So you come down off your high horse long enough to do so. Got it. ;)

[papertyger]

If you’re a baby Christian, what are you doing handing out criticism?

[wmfights]

Many Protestants like to ignore the part about using snippets to support positions, resulting in things like the Rapture.

You raise a good point.

[GoLightly]

You need to learn the difference between "dogma" and Sacred Tradition.

I've learned the difference, despite having no need to know. Dogma is limited to Papal statements made ex Cathedra & rulings by Councils, whereas Sacred Tradition is whatever Rome says it is today, tho it's couched in terms of it being a clarification of what the Church has always held.

Correct. This is "discipline", not "dogma" OR "doctrine".

Rome speaks & poof, actual tradition, as well as a teaching in Scripture is yesterday's news.

Even with items that are not dogma, the Church changes only slowly.

How can you justify any changes at all?

Uh, one of the Pope's titles is "Servant of the Servants of God". I don't know of any priest or bishop who doesn't consider himself as a servant of the faithful.

All rulers make that same claim, tho there have been times when the truth on the ground makes that claim a complete sham.

You mean these:

20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,"

21 for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

Yes!

This sounds like an admonition to Protestants to me?? What's your point.

What part of prophecy is unclear? Unless you're talking about some confession like LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses or Islam, that have spit out new revelations (prophecies) after the end of the age of the Apostles, you're barking up the wrong tree by trying to admonish Protestants with those passages & most of the time when I've seen that tried, verse 21 is left out, just as it was left out of the Catholic catechism.

Matthew 18:17:

"If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. 14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."

Anywhere in the chapter give the church power to do more than try to mediate a dispute between individuals? Looks like the church is meant to act on behalf of the petitioner, right or wrong.

[NYer]

Indeed, could it not also mean Christians must observe "the Law" by virtue of Old Testament Scriptures?

That depends on what you define as "the Law".

[NYer]

When I began to take a look at the Catholic Church (mostly because I was intrigued by old movies like The Bells of St. Mary), and discovered that these people actually believed that there was a big point to Communion I was hooked. It took a few more years until I actually “Poped” and one of the reasons I was finally willing to offend my family was the thought that this Church has existed since the time of Jesus and so they have the experience. They’ve been around longer than the Baptists et al.

Thank you, Diva, for your witness! I truly needed to read your post tonight. May our Lord continue to bless you on your journey!

[Wonder Warthog]

"I've learned the difference, despite having no need to know. Dogma is limited to Papal statements made ex Cathedra & rulings by Councils, whereas Sacred Tradition is whatever Rome says it is today."

Your "understanding" is wrong.

The Catholic Church has a hierarchy of the categories of teachings that include (from top to bottom) dogmas, doctrines, disciplines, and devotions.

Dogmas are the fundamental teachings of the Church. The basic catalog is the articles in The Apostles’ Creed (The Apostles’ Creed is a sort of pageant that has one article or verse for each of the twelve apostles—but that’s a post for another time). There are many other dogmas including Transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, and others. Oddly, there doesn’t appear to be a completely inclusive list of Church dogmas and scholars and clerics differ somewhat on what the dogmas of the Church actually are. Dogmas are universal and unchanging. So long as Catholicism remains Catholicism you won’t see a change in the dogmas of the Church. Canons of Church councils are dogmatic.

Doctrines are, broadly, the teachings of the Church. Every dogma is a doctrine but not every doctrine is a dogma. A doctrine may apply to a specific community within the Church. It may be binding and authoritative to them and not to other communities within the Church. Papal encyclicals are doctrinal. Doctrines may be different within different communities within the Church and may change over time. For example, Pius IX (IIRC) taught against political democracy. John Paul II taught in favor of political democracy.

Disciplines are practices that spring from the magisterium—the teaching office—of the Church and definitely have changed over time. The disciplines of indulgences and fasting have changed enormously since the Middle Ages, for example.

That priests are not allowed to marry or "not eating meat on Friday" are matters of discipline. These practices are authoritative and binding but may be changed.

Devotions are things like the Rosary, the apparitions at Lourdes, Fatima, or elsewhere, about which the choice to believe or not is left up to the individual.

"Rome speaks & poof, actual tradition, as well as a teaching in Scripture is yesterday's news."

Simply not true.

"How can you justify any changes at all?"

There are none---to dogma.

"What part of prophecy is unclear? Unless you're talking about some confession like LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses or Islam, that have spit out new revelations (prophecies) after the end of the age of the Apostles, you're barking up the wrong tree by trying to admonish Protestants with those passages & most of the time when I've seen that tried, verse 21 is left out, just as it was left out of the Catholic catechism."

I still don't see what point you're trying to make.

"Anywhere in the chapter give the church power to do more than try to mediate a dispute between individuals? Looks like the church is meant to act on behalf of the petitioner, right or wrong."

The Church's authority is not derived from this chapter, but from the power given to Peter by Christ (the keys of heaven, and the power to bind and loose).