I realized last night Sola Scriptura isn't true

[po18guy]

Hisalone, that’s something I’m still confused about – who is and who is not faithfully receiving the true teachings of Christ’s Church. Unless I’m missing something, Peter’s chair wasn’t always so dominant over the other patriarchs.

It is not how the Church has subsequently ended up, it is how it was founded and began that is important to study. Christ founded His Church on Peter, who first denied, then later reaffirmed his love of Christ three times. Consider also that Paul went to see Peter, not the other way round. Again, Peter is mentioned 195 times in Scripture. The closest is John at 29 times. Peter is always listed first, Judas last. This is inspired, inerrant Scripture, so Catholics believe it. The early Church lived it out.

 

[emarc]

The Bible never says it, not even II Tim. 3:16 - only that Scripture is sufficient to teach about salvation.

The authority of the Apostles came before anything in the NT was written down.

The way the Fathers write, instead of “Scripture alone” it seems it should be something like “no Scripture rejected.” Even Martin Luther seems to have been saying that at one point.

Anyway, it really hit me hard. I had a lot of weird dreams last night. This morning I read a lot of Protestant defenses of Sola Scriptura and they were disappointing. Feels like when I started to suspect believer’s baptism of being a recent innovation.

just as marcus grodi of chn would say, many verses in the Bible he read a hundred times w/c he thought he knew, were only revealed the meaning to him after his conversion to the Catholic faith. i believe he said that most protestants’ understanding of the Bible is truncated. Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium truly complement each other for the full understanding of the faith. the early fathers understood and accepted this. sola scriptura and sola fide are simply unbiblical.
God bless.