Catholic Challenge # 5

 It can be intimidating to face someone when they give you a list of issues to work through. With my interactions with "Ed" on Facebook, it's clear to me that this is strategic. He intended for his list to be big and daunting in order to dissuade me from responding to him, especially in any meaningful fashion. But, I do believe that "Ed" is in error, and that people should know that there are people who will stand up and defend the truth of Sola Scriptura. Today I will continue my examination and response to his charges against SS. This is his fifth point and as always, the text by "Ed" are in red and the Scriptures are in blue.

5.  Those letters and books were read during the liturgy (the mass).

One of the major problems that "Ed" and other defenders of Rome like him, is that they take way too much for granted. The whole premise of this question is misleading and assumes too much, and this must be noted before anything is addressed. The point of contention between Roman Catholics and Protestants is not that the early church didn't see the Scriptures as important. What the point of contention is is the many theological claims that Rome throws out there without any defense.

You see, Rome makes declarations, and then explains that these declarations are true by saying something like: 

4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the Lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the Apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

Pastor Aeternus Ch 1.4

Pastor Aeternus is the document that declared and defined the Roman Catholic dogma of Papal Infallibility. This is probably one of the clearest examples of a Roman Catholic dogma that doesn't have any basis in the Bible, history, or tradition of any sort. The document provides a few citations to validate its argument, such as in chapter 3.5 and 4.2. There is also a vague reference to Matthew 16 in chapter 1.2 and 4.2, as well as a couple other Biblical references that have absolutely nothing to do with Papal Infallibility. The only way that Papal Infallibility can come to mind from the quotes and passages given in Pastor Aeternus is by utilizing eisegesis. 

Pastor Aeternus is a poor defense of Papal Infallibility that leaves it up to the layman to substantiate its own claims. "Ed" is also utilizing a similar technique. Make a bunch of claims that don't really mean anything and then says that Sola Scriptura is wrong. Just because different churches read from the Scriptures all throughout history doesn't even come close to being a good point against SS. 

Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.

Psalms 119:105