Sola Scriptura is Sound

Hello CynicalDiogenes, here are my 5 questions for the Q&A.1. If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which "apostolic tradition" is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?2. Why do Roman Catholics believe that Peter was the first Pope? Do you have some justification for that statement, based on Scripture?3. According to Catechism of the Catholic Church, Para82 says " As a result the [Roman Catholic] Church...does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." If that statement is true, then how can the Bible be God's word and why should we trust it? 4. The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it. They indicated that the scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the heretics for getting it wrong. If those outside the church and common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the apostolic fathers expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills? 5. If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?Answers:1.Firstly, Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible and form their own opinions.They must merely rely on the Guidance of the Catholic church to ensure that they do not come to any wrong conclusions or make mistakes.There are many core issues like the interpretation of the Book of Genesis, the true nature of the Afterlife(is it also a place you go after you die, or a state of mind alone.)etc, where the elders are still disagreeing, and represent different views.Unless the holy spirit inspires the Pope to make an ex-cathedra declaration, we are required to use our intellect to interpret it the best we can, and can believe whatever we want.The church has a rich diversity of beliefs, I am personally Thomist,who follows the interpretation and theology of St.Thomas Aquinas, but not everyone in the church needs to be, there are a number of Saints and Doctors of the church we can follow any of them,or follow a personal belief as long as it does not interfere with the rulings of the church.Rulings are made, only in those cases in which the church feels a particular interpretation is completely wrong, and is a dead end for spiritual progress.In every council,papal encyclical and papal bull that deals with Biblical ruling on interpretation, the detailed explanations for every decision must also be given.None of the decisions are blindly forced on believers.Those who refuse to believe are 'anathema'.Anathema does not mean that you are condemned to hell immediately.It merely means that you no longer enjoy the protection of infallibility promised to St.Peter of the church, and are open to the deception of the devil who you now are going to face on your own.Many may face this willingly,but they are not allowed to lead others to error, and to teach this as a church dogma.I come to the conclusion that the catholic 'tradition' is correct personally because:A.It is the only church that has an unbroken tradition historically.Unlike protestant denominations that came up 1500+ years after the death of Christ.B.Even orthodox christians(the only other church to be as old as the catholic tradition) see the pope as a 'Patriarch of the West' they don't see the catholic interpretation as completely wrong, and want the Pope to merely be a 'First among of equals' of the Patriarchs.I will explain this in more detain below for answer 5C.Jesus said 'On this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell shall never prevail against it.' to believe that the church he founded went in error is to say that the church was over come by the deception of the devil.Heresy was common and throughout history we see that they eventually die away, But only the catholic church has survived.I think Protestantism is going the same way.It is fractured,small, confused, irrational and divided, just like the early heresies.D.Catholic Dogma has never contradicted itself in core issues of dogma and interpretation in over 1800 years if seen properly and in a detailed fashion.Protestants have consistently been inconsistent in their beliefs and undergo a sea of change every decade.The teachings of Christ are meant to last forever, not change with every new idea that comes along.2.The title 'Pope' is a modern invention for Bishop of Rome.I have already shown how the current Pope has an unbroken chain of succession from St.Peter.St.Peter was merely the person whom Jesus promised would be the 'Rock' and foundation of his church.He is mentioned in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles 191 times, while all the other disciples combined come only 130 times.He is the one who first calls Jesus as the Messiah and is told that all he binds on earth will be bound in heaven first.It makes sense that the church of his unbroken chain of spiritual successors would be the true church.I will show how the primacy of Rome was the belief of the early fathers also:St.Irenaeus("Against Heresies"):"It is possible then for everyone ....who may wish to know the truth to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles.The saints Peter and Paul have handed over the episcopate(of Rome) to Linus. St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity.<See sources for a more detailed respose.>3.I do not see where this is a problem.Tradition and Scripture are both the foundations of the faith.Tradition obviously predates the Bible.The Bible is silent on a lot of things, but tradition is not.In those cases, tradition is as infallible as the Bible, as both are inspired by God.Tradition never contradicts scripture,nor scripture tradition.They are both needed for the fullness of faith.The guidance of elders and men of wisdom,learning and authority of the Holy spirit is needed to interpret both and to give guidance as the time changes and new questions are raised.The 2000 year collective experience and directions of these men forms the catechism of the catholic church.God's word is recorded in the scripture.His teachings are also recorded in practical actions of tradition.So we can very well follow both, and trust that both are equal.4.When the early church fathers believed that everything is explicitly written in the Bible, they were trying to stem heresies like the Gnostic Heresy that claimed that there was some kind of 'hidden teaching' of Christ, that only they had access to.They were trying to show that the truth that the Bible contained was simple enough to be understood by intelligent reading, and no 'special','hidden' code or secret existed in the Bible.This does not mean that every possible interpretation of the Bible, done by anybody is going to be correct.They were also against ancient heresies like the Arian heresy that required 'Bible- Alone' interpretations and used a non biblical word Homoousios to refute it.I think most protestants believe Jesus is God, they have this non-biblical argument to thank for this belief. 5.No.Catholics have only ONE dogma, summarised in the Lumen Gentium.The core beliefs of this have not changed in 1800 years.Over 1.2 Billion of us in 170 countries are united by this SINGLE set of core beliefs.We have only ONE leader, the Pope, who I have shown is the direct Spiritual descendant of St.Peter the Apostle himself.When compared to the 30,000+, small,fractured, divided,self-contradicting protestant faiths,who are less than 300-400 years old,regularly flip flopping on core issues and keep condemning everyone else as false and wrong,the division between the Catholics and the Orthodox Christians is surprisingly less intense.The Orthodox and Catholics have a long history, and apart from some minor theological issues,the main difference is whether the Pope ALONE has infallibility, or all the Patriarchs do .The Orthodox Christians too accept that the Pope is a 'Patriarch of the West' and is a 'First among equals'.Most of the beliefs of the Catholics and the orthodox christians are surprisingly similar, and are merely based on adminstrational disputes(western and eastern Roman Empires) as well as who has authority in deciding what is theologically superior and inferior.Nobody is denying the Infallibility of the Pope not even staunch orthodox defenders.They merely want more patriarchs to have something that was never propmised to them in the first placeI don't follow the Orthodox faith, merely because they refuse to accept the infallibility of the Pope as a Dogma.This in spite of the verses in the Bible showing that St.Peter alone was chosen to be the 'Rock of the church'.Nevertheless,it is still dogmatically possible for both faiths to reconcile these differences and come together,unlike some protestant faiths that claim that everyone else is going to be condemned to burn in hell.There are many 'eastern' Catholic churches that have done this(including mine-I am actually a Syrio-Malabar Nasrani christian).Sources:I have providied a link that gives a more detailed response for Papacy:http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org...