Is sola scriptura scriptural? (was: (Ron) For Ron)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

RON
  The quote you present about adding or subtracting refers to a 
particular book of Scripture. This is logical if you consider that they 
all existed separately before the Church combined them into the Bible. 
When he wrote this the Bible as such did not exist.
  The Church has never relied solely on the bible. The Church existed 
before there was a Christian Bible (OT and NT), why should she limit 
herself to a work she produced. That's like you writing something to me 
and limiting yourself to speaking only the words you spoke in that 
letter. It makes no sense to me. Sola Scriptura is just an excuse for 
protestants to buck the authority of Christ's appointed Church. The 
ironic thing is that it is not even Scriptural! Scripture tells us to 
accept tradition other than that found in the written word when from the 
Church: "Stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, 
whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thess 2:15).
  It is true that marriage hampers our ability to work solely for the 
Kingdom. In fact my wife is yelling at me now to get the children to 
bed! Regardless, Jesus, John the Baptist, and Paul have set a clear 
example of the vocation of celibacy. Unlike protestant notions of 
"equality" we catholics don't have to accept that there is only one 
valid form of life. Everybody doesn't have to be the same and every 
lifestyle is not equal in the eyes of the Lord. The fact is that a monk 
or celibate priest or nun can devote more time and is more comitted to 
the Kingdom (a generalization, there are exceptions!) than I am. 



>from BACH (directed to Ron)

>

>First of all, I don't know how you can say that you, as a Catholic, are 

not

>forced to rely solely on the bible.  Aren't you the guys who put it all

>together in the first place...and doesn't the bible say that anybody 

who

>adds or detracts from its contents is damned to hell? Wouldn't your

>"documented church history" be additions..why didn't you include them 

in

>the

>bible if you had those 2 or 3 hundred years to review and decide on all

>this

>stuff?

>

>As for Paul saying celibacy would allow more time to spend on/for the

>kingdom, isn't he suggesting here that the obligations of a wife and/or

>child would take time away from that effort?  Why, then, does his 

letter to

>Philemon, verse 10, suggest that Paul has begotten a 

son...Onesimus...in

>his

>bonds?  We don't have to debate the meaning of the word begotten 

here.....

>I

*snip*

• Previous message: Jesus shed his blood seven times
• Next message: Ron and a standard of procrastination
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]