Step-by-Step Refutation of Dave Armstrong vs. Sola Scriptura

 A Step-by-Step Refutation of Dave Armstrong vs. Sola Scriptura 

This was to be a reply to a Catholic who posted Armstrong's apologetic on a forum, but which was pulled before I could post it. It takes me a long time to type with my arthritic fingers, and  rather than let my work go to waste I thought I would post it here.  

Note that (as i suspected and later found out) Armstrong's work is from many years ago (2003), and he has posted a reply to a challenger that I have not read, and most likely will not be dealing with, but which has the the link to the original  and is here: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/01/defense-of-my-ten-step-refutation-of-sola-scriptura.html 

I tried to notify Armstrong of my response here but received this when I tried: "We are unable to post your comment because you have been banned by Biblical Evidence for Catholicism"
 
1. Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a “standard of truth”—even the preeminent one

Actually papal teaching is that,

Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church... (Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html) 

but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. 

Which means that Armstrong is teaching sola Roma, that she, "The Church" alone is the sure supreme and sufficient standard for faith and morals, providing all the essential oral and written express public revelation of God.

However, while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, yet even Rome does not presume its popes and ecumenical councils do either in declaring what they "infallibly" assert is the word of God.

Infallibility must be carefully distinguished both from Inspiration and from Revelation... God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error....God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document. - Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm 

Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages. 

Actually, SS does not need to mean that sufficiency refers to only what is formally provides (such as by clear statements), but that,

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture:...

those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means , may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them...

and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. 

It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience...
- The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1646  (emp. mine).

 
And actually Catholics can and do disagree on whether every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly.

As James White states,

"Rome's official statements do not explicitly define whether Tradition is the second of a two-part revelation (known as partim-partim), or if both forms of revelation contain the entirety of God's revealed truth." http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3319

2. “Word” in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah: “For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’” (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]). This was the word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. 

SS holds that men such as the prophets and apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, yet this does not validate the "infallible" claim of Rome to infallibly do so, (as pointed under #2), and  even Rome does not presume its popes and ecumenical councils do either in declaring what they say is the word of God.

Moreover Armstrong's polemic "proves too much," for the only reason Armstrong can cite this is because it was written.

For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;

And that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced 

3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture. 

Which polemic presumes what it cannot prove, that, "This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture." And what is the basis for this assertion is True? Because Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

(Consistent with this, in Catholic theology it is taught than man cannot now what Scripture consists of apart from her, and thus Scripture is to be appealed to as a merely historical document. By which the potential convert is supposed to see that the RCC is of God even  though the poor soul cannot discern wholly inspired Scripture as being of God. Which is consistent Rome's exalted view of herself, but contrary to the fact that an  a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ - without an infallible magisterium) 

Thus as Keating said regarding (the assumption of) the Assumption,

The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275. 

Which is circular, and is to be remembered when Armstrong later tries to argue what the SS position is.

4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. 

This is true, as we know. And Paul also quoted a pagan, (Acts 17:28) and Jude quoted from Enoch.

But only texts from  the Hebrew's canonical books are referred to as Scripture. Meanwhile again, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, which  Rome does not presumes its popes and ecumenical councils do either in declaring what they say is the word of God.

5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians: 

Indeed they did,  with James providing the final judgment, and which council flows from the OT (Dt. 17:8-13) to which  conditional (Acts 5:29) obedience in required, as it is toward all authority. (Rm. 13:7-7)  But contrary to Armstrong, this is  not contrary to SS, for again as Westminster states:

It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. ( CHAPTER XXXI.)

The distinction Armstrong misses is between being the sure and supreme sufficient standard on Truth, versus judicial authority for church on earth. The OT version of the supreme court certainly had authority, (Dt. 17:8-13) - dissent was a capital offense - but it was not infallible. And the ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is nowhere promised or necessary in Scripture.

6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition.. The Pharisees, despite their corruptions and excesses, were the mainstream Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul acknowledge this. So neither the orthodox Old Testament Jews nor the early Church was guided by the principle of sola scriptura. 

This again "proves too much," for those who sat in the seat of Moses were no more infallible than Rome is, and taught traditions of men that the Lord reproved from Scripture as being supreme. And even the veracity of the apostles was subject to testing by the Scriptures by noble men. (Acts 17:11)

Yet Rome effectively presumes she is above such, even declaring belief in the Assumption of Mary to be dogma, which was so lacking even in early testimony of Tradition (where it would be found) that chief scholars of Rome opposed it being declared apostolic doctrine . But for Rome, history, tradition and Scripture only authoritatively consist of and mean what she says - if she does say to herself!

Thus we see distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. and which best shows how the NT church understood the OT and gospels).

7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura To give two examples from the Old Testament itself: a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26). 

This also fails to make distinction between being the sure and supreme sufficient standard on Truth, versus earthly judicial authority. Meanwhile Ezra could also speak and write as wholly inspired of God, unlike popes and councils.

b. In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (cf. 2 Chr. 17:8–9). So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16). 

Which is not an argument against SS, seeing as it affirms the magisterial office, and thus Armstrong is arguing against a strawman. For what Armstrong is not stating is that of his novel and unScriptural premise, that of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome
 
8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant “Proof Text” “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17). This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). “And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Eph. 4:11–15).

Which argument is again invalid since Rome does not speak as wholly inspired apostles, prophets and writers did, while what Scripture materially provides is part of SS sufficiency, and thus it affirms teachers, and evangelicalism abounds with teaching aids. What  we  lack  is a central magisterium, which is Scriptural, but which concept Rome has poisoned by presuming too much of herself and by her corruption.

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture. 

This logical fallacy is akin to Armstrong's failure to differentiate between the only infallible source/authority on Truth, and earthly judicial authority. Here the difference is between pastors and teachers etc. and what materially equips them to be part of the church and for it to grow in grace.

For the church itself was manifestly prophetically and doctrinally built upon Scripture, and by which use in doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness, "the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

9. Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding If Paul wasn’t assuming that, he would have been commanding his followers to adhere to a mistaken doctrine. He writes: “If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14). “Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them” (Rom. 16:17). He didn’t write about “the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not infallible doctrine which you have been taught.” 

Which again both proves too much, since we only know of this reference because God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. And that once again, popes and councils do not speak as wholly inspired of God, though councils can be the supreme judicial authority in the church on earth.

Nor can Rome prove she is teaching what the apostles orally did, as instead faithful Catholics are supposed to take her word for it.

10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to “the Bible’s clear teaching.” Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation. This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, “Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t.” 

Asserting that the Constitution (or Bible) is true because it says so is circular, but once that is settled, arguing about what the Constitution teaches and says about itself is not circular.

The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter. 

Again, SS affirms the judicial office, but not as possessing ensured infallibility, which is the real argument Armstrong does not make.

And rather than an infallible magisterium being required  for writings to be established as being from God, Scripture attests that a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") " even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.)

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. 

This also is a logically self-defeating since Rome herself has neither defined all the issues that RCS can disagree on, nor what magisterial level each belongs to, and what she has taught is subject to varying degrees of variant interpretations. And today Catholicism exists as a collection of formal and informal sects. And rather than her magisterium providing unity, as one poster wryly commented,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, https://christopherblosser.wordpress.com/2005/05/16/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of-catholic-teaching (original http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html)

And as what we really believe is shown by what we do, Rome shows her interpretation of what/who she inclusively constitutes a member can be by manifestly treating even liberal proabortion, prohomosexual public figures as members in life and in death.

In addition, considering what is broadly classed as Protestantism then comparing one church, albeit existing in schisms and sects, with such a broad class is invalid.

'But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are “minor” 

Actually, once again Armstrong needs to be schooled:
In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith." (CCC 90) 

and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion." 

Armstrong here in engaging in sophistry by blaming SS for division, a problem which his alternative has not solved, while most of what he describes is among those who do not take Scripture seriously, and mischaracterizes such.

Meanwhile Catholics attest to being far less unified in core beliefs/values than those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God, which Catholics attack as a basis for unity.

And under his alternative to SS then submission to Rome is the answer, and Rome shows her interpretation of what constitutes a member by manifestly considering liberal proabortion, prohomosexual souls as members in life and in death, while officially teaching false doctrine even on salvation, then her's is a unity that leads to Hell.

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (Revelation 18:4) 

Supplemental: questions for those who argue for the alternative of SS, sola ecclesia. 

1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving what He told man as well as what man does: oral transmission or writing?

2. What became the established supreme authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or "it is written"/Scripture?

3. Which came first: the written word of God and an authoritative body of it, or the NT church?

4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings require an infallible magisterium?

5. Which transcendent sure source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating her claims to the nation that was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?

6. Was the veracity of Scripture subject to testing by the oral words of men or vice versa?

7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as 
apostles did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?

8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and the most reliable record and supreme source on what the NT church believed?

9. Do you think sola scripture must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says?

10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards it being the express Divine revelation which formally and materially provides for what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace?

11. What oral source has spoken to man as wholly inspired   public revelation outside Scripture since the last book was penned?

12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?

13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?

14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter?

Is "Roman Catholic" or "Roman church" simply a slur invented by Protestants?

In addition to their objections to virtually anything that impugns their self-proclaimed elitist "one true church,"  whose  distinctives are not what is manifest in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels), Roman Catholics also object to the very use of "Roman Catholic"  in distinction from others, as being an invented Protestant slur.

However, if this is true than then their church is guilty of making that distinction, for  the use of  the term "Roman" in identifying herself often occurs in her own encyclicals as well as some Bulls, usually in distinguishing her from others, and not counting those referring to the Roman pontiff or cardinals or other prelates, and beginning from before the needed Reformation, including in Latin (eph. mine):

Gregory VII: Dictatus Papae 1090: " the Roman church was founded by God alone... the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness...he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic. - https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/g7-dictpap.asp

Fourth Lateran Council 1215: Council Fathers - 1215 A.D.: "the faith held by the Roman church, which is by God’s plan the mother and mistress of all the faithful." "Wishing therefore to remove such a great scandal from God’s church, we strictly order, on the advice of this sacred council, that henceforth they do not presume to do such things but rather conform themselves like obedient sons to the holy Roman church, their [the Greeks] mother, so that there may be one flock and one shepherd." " the Roman church, which through the Lord’s disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful..." "In order that privileges which the Roman church has granted to certain religious may remain unimpaired..." - https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum12-2.htm

The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV: "The sacrosanct Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes, and preaches one true God omnipotent, unchangeable, and eternal, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; one in essence, three in persons;... the Holy Roman Church...believes firmly, professes, and proclaims that “every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving.” - https://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html

Exsurge Domine Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther Pope Leo X - 1520: "Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches... Against the Roman Church, you warned, lying teachers are rising..." "opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith..." - https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10exdom.htm

Quo Primum Pope Pius V - 1570: "Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches...the penalty for nonobservance for printers, whether mediately or immediately subject to Our dominion, and that of the Holy Roman Church, will be the forfeiting of their books and a fine of one hundred gold ducats..." - https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htm

Ineffabilis Deus The Immaculate Conception Pope BI. Pius IX - 1854: "Ordinary Teaching of the Roman Church These truths, so generally accepted and put into practice by the faithful, indicate how zealously the Roman Church, mother and teacher of all Churches...It is the Church in which alone religion has been inviolably preserved and from which all other Churches must receive the tradition of the Faith." - https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9ineff.htm

Ex Quo On the Euchologion Pope Benedict XIV - 1756: "the Decree for the Jacobites of the Council of Florence reads: “The holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that every creature of God is good and not to be rejected if it is taken with thanks." - https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14exquo.htm

Singulari Quidem On the Church in Austria Pope BI. Pius IX - 1856: "There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church." - https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9singul.htm

 Decrees of the First Vatican Council Council Fathers - 1868 A.D. SESSION 2 : 6 January 1870 Profession of faith "I, Pius, bishop of the catholic church, with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the profession of faith which the holy Roman church uses, namely:" - https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm

Grande Munus On Saints Cyril and Methodius Pope Leo XIII - 1880: "We decree that July 5 be set aside in the calendar of the universal Roman Church, as Pius IX ordained." - https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13cym.htm

Fausto Appetente Die On St. Dominic Pope Benedict XV - 1921: "has ever been the stout defense of the Roman Church." -https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben15/b15fadie.htm

Mystici Corporis Pope Pius XII - 1943: "If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church...nothing surely more honorable can be imagined than to belong to the One, Holy Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, in which we become members of One Body" - https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12mysti.htm

Humani Generis Pope Pius XII - 1950: "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing." - https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12human.htm

Sacramentum Ordinis On the Sacrament of Order Pope Pius XII - 1947: "every one knows that the Roman Church has always held as valid Ordinations conferred according to the Greek rite.." - https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12sacrao.htm

 And as for what the  New Testament  Church is called,

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: (1 Corinthians 1:2)

What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:22)

For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (1 Corinthians 15:9)

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia: (2 Corinthians 1:1)

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: (Galatians 1:13)

(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) (1 Timothy 3:5)

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)

Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you. (Romans 16:16)

And contrary to what the deformation  called Catholicism asserts, the church which the Lord promised to overcome the gates of Hell was not one organic organization outside of which no believers were to be found, but the one true church was and is the body of Christ that the Spirit baptizes every believer into, (1Co. 12:13) and to which He is married. (Eph. 5:25)   "the household of faith."  (Galatians 6:10)

For it uniquely only and always consists 100% of true believers, while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.

14 questions as regards sola scriptura versus sola ecclesia

14 questions as regards sola scriptura versus sola ecclesia   

Some think that sola scriptura (SS) must mean that only the Bible is to be used, and  that no one can be saved unless they have and can read the Bible, and even that a SS preacher could not preach the gospel to people without a Bible, nor enjoin obedience to oral exhortation (under the premise that the preaching can pass the test of Scripture), and that Scripture formally explicitly provides all that is necessary for salvation and growth in grace, thus dispensing with the teaching office of the church, and helps of commentaries and any authority of synods,  

But which opinions means that such are misled as to what SS means, and reason dictates, versus "alone" in SS meaning Scripture alone is the only infallible, supreme, standard of express Divine public revelation, to which all teaching must agree with, and as the sole sure, substantive source and authority on doctrine, it is  sufficient (in its formally and material senses* combined) to  provide all that is needed for salvation and growth in grace, by which  one can (not necessarily all will) do so thereby. 

As in the words of the Westminster Confession, in Scripture

 "the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for God's own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture."

"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them"   (necessary things).

The "due use of the ordinary means" can include helps such  as dictionaries and commentaries (which abound among SS advocates), as Scripture materially provides for the gifts such as teaching. 

As well as providing for administration, that of the teaching office of the church,  under which Westminster Confession  (originally  a confession of the Church of England) itself falls.  

And in which it is affirmed,

 "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." 

Also, as a matter of material providence:

.".we acknowledge...that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature , and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html 

And since Scripture also testifies to and affirms the recognition and establishment of a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings by the time of Christ, so also it provided for the complete canon of Scripture.
For a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings was manifestly established by the time of Christ as being “Scripture, (”in all the Scriptures” - Lk. 24:27) “ even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings. ( Lk. 24:44). 

 And which body provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church (which was thus a product of Scripture)

And regarding the objections of how Scripture alone can be the wholly inspired, sure, supreme and sufficient (in its formal and material senses) standard on faith and morals, when Paul referred to keeping oral tradition 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and the church as being the foundation of the Truth, and that souls could be regenerated without a complete Bible or being able to read it, then it is because,

1. From Adam onward, God always provided enough revelation for obedience to Him, which (aside from general revelation of nature, and morally of conscience) before Moses, was in a very limited sense and expressly to a limited amount of persons  who thus shared it.

But when choosing to reveal Himself more fully and to an entire nation, God committed His word to writing, this manifestly being His  chosen means of preservation, versus  materially insubstantial  untestable oral transmission which is highly vulnerable to undetectable  corruption   (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;

2. As with Moses, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, neither of which even Rome presumes its popes and ecumenical councils do. Yet  Scripture had become the standard by which even the veracity of  even the apostles could be subject to testing by:

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

Likewise, as from Adam onward, souls today can be saved who do not personally possess a Bible or are able to read Scripture, as faith comes by hearing the word of God, and those who hear the Truth of gospel of the grace of God, and convicted of their need for salvation thereby can be saved thru those who share that truth.  By the grace of God souls could hear  the basic message of  Acts 10:43-47 and could be saved, and go on from there.

But it is Scripture that alone is the sure supreme standard for the veracity of what is taught, and formally provides necessary Truth, explicitly or implicitly, and materially provides for teachers, etc. Thus what is taught must be the Truth of Scripture, versus contrivances as the  assumption of the Assumption. 

3. Moreover, under the alternative of sola ecclesia, one can only assume that what their church teaches as oral tradition includes the teachings Paul referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. 

And for a RC, the assurance (that something is the word of God) is based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity, which itself is based upon so-called tradition (nowhere in Scripture is perpetual magisterial veracity in all universally binding matters of faith and morals promised or seen, nor is that how God preserved faith, nor is it required for authority). 

4. While Catholicism presumes that what Paul referred to as tradition is part of its body of unwritten oral tradition, but which cannot be proved and the premise that unwritten oral tradition is the word of God is  based upon its own tradition of ensured   perpetual magisterial veracity.  

However we can assume that what Paul referred to as tradition was subsequently written down, since God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation of the word of God. 

5. And it is abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.

6. Rather than an infallible magisterium being required for a body of wholly God-inspired  writings to be established as being from God, as mentioned, a  body of authoritative writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture ("in all the Scriptures:" Lk. 24:27), even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.)

7. None of the few Greek words in 1 Timothy 3:15 ("church living God pillar and ground the truth" teach that the magisterial office of the church is supreme over Scripture, and both words for “pillar” and “ground” of the truth denote support (apostles were called “pillars”). And Scripture itself and most of it came before the church, and the latter was built upon the prophetic, doctrinal epistemological foundation of transcendent Scripture. And thus we see the abundant appeal to it in establishing the authority of teaching by the church, as the Lord did Himself in establishing His prophetic messiahship and ministry to those who would build His church, and opening their understanding of Scripture,  which included expanding the contents of Scripture, such as through Paul (cf. 2 Peter 3:15,16) 

Thus here are questions for those who argue for the alternative of sola scriptura, which is that of sola ecclesia:

1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving the word of God: oral transmission or writing?
2. What became the established supreme substantive authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or  Scripture?
3. Which came first: an authoritative body of  wholly God-inspired writings  of the word of God, or the NT church, and which provided the transcendent prophetic, doctrinal and moral foundation for the NT church?

4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly God-inspired authoritative writings by the first century require an infallible magisterium?
5. Which transcendent sure, substantive source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating Truth claims to a nation which was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?
6. Was the veracity of Scripture ever subject to testing by the oral words of men, or vice versa?
7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as apostles could and did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?
8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the transcendent, supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and the most reliable record and supreme source for what the NT church believed?
9. Do you think sola scriptura must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says, and means that all believers will correctly understand what is necessary, and that it replaces the magisterial office (and ideally a centralized one)  as the  formal  judicial earthly authority on matters of dispute (though it appeals to Scripture as the only infallible and supreme substantive source of Divine Truth)?
10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible explicitly and formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards it being express Divine public revelation, and which formally and materially (combined) provides what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace, as the sole sure, supreme, standard of express Divine public revelation?
11. What infallible oral magisterial source has spoken to man as the wholly God-inspired public word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned?
12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?
13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?
14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter?

 *SS actually includes the materially sense as regards sufficiency, as  affirming such things as reason and the recognition by Truth-loving souls as to what is of God, thus  providing for a canon of Scripture,  but not as in Catholicism, (esp. RC). 

In which "The Church" asserts that written and oral tradition teach ensured perpetual magisterial veracity in formal teaching on faith and morals, uniquely for their church, thus effectively validating its own claim. 

Whereby  they claim the Assumption is a fact ("remembering" what history forgot to record in that era), and thus all are required to believe it. 

But SS does teach material sufficiency in the sense that "what is "necessary for God's own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added [as public express revelation], whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." To which it adds that souls by "a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" (necessary things). And that,

.".we acknowledge...that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature , and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/westminster-confession-faith 

Required Catholic submission

Roman Catholics (RCs) have been basically telling us (often misinterpreting 2 Peter 1:20,21) for centuries that relying on our judgment of what valid teaching is and what it means is wrong, and that we need a pope and magisterium to submit to in order to avoid division, and not only in solemn ex cathedra teachings.

However, then Traditionalist RCs - mainly based upon their own interpretation of selectively chosen pre-modern RC teachings - declare their own pope (or all modern popes) as wrong and much conciliar teaching (including Vatican 2) as in error, based upon their judgment of what valid teaching is and means, including as regards what requires assent. Yet which is contrary to many papal teachings of the past. 

* Epistola Tua: To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment , and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation.

Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.... Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en

"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to [only] concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church. (Quanta Cura. Encyclical of Pope Pius IX promulgated on December 8, 1864; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm)

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent... if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI, August 1950; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

The authority (of papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great". It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church." - Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, esteemed Catholic theologian and professor of fundamental dogmatic theology at the Catholic University of America, who served as a peritus for Cardinal Ottaviani at the Second Vatican Council. Extract from the American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949; http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.

Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html

...when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. - (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x

to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.novusordowatch.org/est-sane-molestum-leo-xiii.htm 

In addition, as concerns social teaching, The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states: 

80. In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. … Insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching, the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it . - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html 

And it is quite well evidenced that the pope's  prolix  encyclical Laudato si'  (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy. (172 references in this encyclical cite church teaching and prelates for support). 

Thus we either have Trad. RCs contradicting past papal teaching in dissenting from modern papal and magisterial teaching, and that Rome's interpretation of herself is to be trusted. They also disagree on whether a pope can be deposed. 

And the fact that the supposed one sure and supreme definer and interpreter of the word of God is herself subject to interpretation testifies that  it is not the solution to disunity.  

As  one poster wryly stated of V2,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ”  Nathan, https://christopherblosser.wordpress.com/2005/05/16/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of-catholic-teaching (original http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html) 

Another poster provides a list of notable sects (as of 2019) which traditional Catholics have split themselves into:  

1. Church Militant who chastise the Bishops but not the Pope
2. The Wanderer supporters
3. The Remnant led by the brother of the publisher of The Wanderer who now disowns The Wanderer
4. The SSPX
5. Those that believe the SSPX is a valid Catholic organization but aren't members.
6. Those who believe the SSPX is in apostasy
7. Those former members of the SSPX that believe Fellay is too deferential to the Pope
8. Sedevacantists who believe Francis is the first anti-Pope or non-Pope
9. Sedevacantists who believe John XXIII was the first anti-pope or non-Pope and that the Second Vatican Council is invalid
10. Those that believe in various conspiracy theories that the Church is now completely controlled by: The Vatican Bank, Gays, Masons, Space Aliens, the Illuminati or some combination of the above
11. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who either quietly or on record disagree with the Pope but are unwilling to go all the way and call him a heretic
12. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who are willing to call the Pope a heretic but are also willing to wait for the process of replacement to unfold in an orderly manner. - who_would_fardels_bear: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3755297/posts?page=6#6

The there are confessions such as "Changing My Mind about the Changeable Church,"  by Richard A. McCormick, S.J.https://www.religion-online.org/article/changing-my-mind-about-the-changeable-church/

However, the real problem is that  RC distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. which best shows the NT church understood the OT and gospels).