Question about Sola Scriptura

[skate4riedell]

Why does the Catholic church reject Sola Scriptura?

 

[JimG]

Why does the Catholic church reject Sola Scriptura?

First, because it isn’t scriptural. The Scriptures do not proclaim sola scriptura as a doctrine. That’s why it was not believed as a doctrine until some 1500 years after Christ.

Second, it’s unworkable. There is nothing in the scriptures that says what constitutes scripture. (The table of contents of the bible is not part of scripture.) If scripture doesn’t say what scripture is, then scripture obviously cannot be sola.

Third, it isn’t useful, and hasn’t ever worked historically. Those who believe in sola scriptura have widely different beliefs, some contradictory.

 

[NotWorthy]

Why does the Catholic church reject Sola Scriptura?

Why do other faiths reject the authority of the Church, when Scriptures show that Jesus explicitly gave that authority to the Church.

Don’t get me wrong, the Catholic Church greatly venerates Holy Scriptures, even if some (ok, ok, too many) catholics don’t. The Church cherished and preserved the Scriptures for 2000 years, as She still does today. But Jesus built a Church with the authority to teach and the authority to bind and loose. So together, the Church has a three-legged stool to prop Herself up with:

1. The Bible
2. Sacred Tradition
3. The teaching Magisterium

But Sola Scriptura is the end result of those who have removed the 2nd and 3rd leg of the stool. That’s why Sola Scriptura has produced 100’s or 1000’s of denominations, while the Catholic Church of 2000 years ago is the Catholic Church of today. Granted, the mustard seed has sprouted and grown and blossomed (and been pruned, sadly). But it’s still the same organic entity that Jesus left with Peter and the Apostles.

BTW, Welcome to the forums, Skate!!!

And Skate, what are your thoughts on Sola Scriptura? Do you think it’s workable and Scriptural? If so, can you provide Scriptural Proof of SS?

 

[DebChris]

Scripture, as the written Word of God, is based on Tradition, the teachings of the Apostles, not the other way around.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Sola Scriptura is based on each individual reading the Bible and then coming up with their own interpretation of it. People have taken verses of the Bible out of context to justify all kinds of things, including murder. Without Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church to guide us in our reading of Sacred Scripture, everybody will come away from it with their own interpretations based on one verse from here and another from there. If you’ve ever tried to talk to a Protestant, they use “proof-texting” - taking individual verses out of context and combining it with other out of context verses to justify whatever they want to.

Sola Scripture is a sure recipe for chaos - which is why there are 35,000 Protestant sects in existence today.

As other people have already mentioned, sola scriptura is not in the Bible - but relying on Tradition is! Jesus giving Peter the Keys to the Kingdom and saying on this Rock I will build my Church is in there!

I wish more Catholics would learn the Bible as well as many Protestants know it … only with a correct understanding guided by the Magisterium of the Church. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ himself, as St. Jerome said.

 

[teachccd]

Read Luke 1:1-4 and see that Luke doesn’t agree with sola scriptura. Realize that in verse 4 Luke explains that the Word of God was given orally and was already received not through written scripture.

Why do Catholics reject sola scriptura? Mainly because scripture does…teachccd

 

[Athanasiy]

We have the Scripture because of the Catholic Church councils.
The Divine Nature of the New Testament is the Dogma of the Catholic Church.
Therefore I see the Scripture only in the context of the Church , and the Church in the context of the Scripture.
Otherwise , I can fall in errors .
In errors of not understanding the nature of immortality , the nature of Divinity and Salvation , and many other Spiritual realities which the Holy Spirit reveals only to the Church.

 

[Static]

Why does the Catholic church reject Sola Scriptura?

Hey skate,

        Welcome ! :)  What scripture(s) have you've been taught to support such a doctrine ?

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[SilentKnight]

First, because it isn’t scriptural. The Scriptures do not proclaim sola scriptura as a doctrine. That’s why it was not believed as a doctrine until some 1500 years after Christ.

Second, it’s unworkable. There is nothing in the scriptures that says what constitutes scripture. (The table of contents of the bible is not part of scripture.) If scripture doesn’t say what scripture is, then scripture obviously cannot be sola.

Third, it isn’t useful, and hasn’t ever worked historically. Those who believe in sola scriptura have widely different beliefs, some contradictory.

Fourth, up until recent times, the vast majority of peoples have been illiterate and the mass production of Bibles was not possible until the 1500’s anyway.



SK

 

[Michael_G]

Why does the Catholic church reject Sola Scriptura?

Not only does Scripture not teach anywhere Bible Alone, it teaches quite emphatically that both the written and oral word of God passed down is to be paid attention, the oral passing down through sacred oral tradition:

Most Important is that Scripture is clear on this and is repeated often by Paul that we are to pay attention to both the Sacred Oral word as well as the Sacred Written word passed down.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 …Thank God constantly for this, that when you receivedthe word of God Which your heard from us,…

2 Thessalonians 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm, and hold teachings that you have learned whether by word (Sacred oral teaching) or by letter of ours.”

2 Thesalonians 3:6 6* Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us ( Sacred oral teachings)

Malachi 2:7; “The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at this mouth. (Sacred Oral teaching)”

2 Timothy 2::2, “and the things that thou hast heard from me through many witnesses, commend to trust-worthy men who shall be competent in turn to teach others.”

1 Corinthians 11:2, “Now I praise you, brethren, because in all things you are mindful of me and hold fast my precepts as I gave them to you.”

We are told that first Christian “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles” (Acts 2, 42) which was the oral teaching that was given long before the New Testament was written.
1Cor 11:2 and hold fast my precepts (oral teaching)
2Tim 1: 13 Hold to the form of sound teaching which thous has heard from me.
Titus 1:3 manifested his word through the preaching committed to my trust by the Command of God
1Thes 2:13 …you heard and received from us the word of God

1Cor 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached (Oral teaching) unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

Furthermore John tells us that everything has not been written down.

John 21:25, “There are, however, many other things that Jesus did; but if every one of these would be written not even the world itself, I think, could hold the books that would have to be written.” (Not everything concerning Christ is in the Scripture per John)

John 20:30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures: for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the **same are they that give testimony of me. **

1 Timothy 3:15, “The church is the pillar and foundation of truth.”

consequently the church has taught really for over 2000 years the four rules for interpretation of Scripture and quite explicitly over the last few centuries:
A Catholic Exegesis of Sacred Sripture

A Catholic Exegesis of Sared Scripture has for 2,000 years been based on four rules in the Exegisis of
Scripture fully defined Established by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus (1893) seconded and confirmed by Pope Benedict XV in Spiritus Paraclitus (1920) and by Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) Pope Pius XII declared in Divino… that Leo’s encyclical Providentisisimus for interpreting the bible to** “the supreme guide in Biblical studies”** **Four rules for interpreting the Bible for the Catholic Church
**

1. Always pay attention to the Magisterium the authority of the Church
2. Be guided by what the early fathers had to say about a particular passage.
3. Always to be guided by what the **Bible has to say as a whole **(not key phrases here and there for defining ones theology and ignoring passages which do not fit one’s theology, see opening quote). One must take into account all of Scripture which pertains to a given doctrinal truth.
4. Always take the Bible Literally unless it is reasonably unattenable

Most outside of the Catholic Church would ignore rule number one. But all Christians outside of the Catholic church ought to pay attentions to the last three rules particulary rule number “2” and “3”. Rule “2” states to always be guided by what the early church fathers had to say. Why? First we were not there to hear and see everything and can easily be fooled into reading something not there into Scripture or reading something out of Scripture. The First Fathers were trained by the Apostles and the preceding Fathers are closer to the time frame allowing for less corruption of the teachings to occur. We are 2,000 years removed from the original source.

 

[jcrichton]

Why does the Catholic church reject Sola Scriptura?

Hi!

…here’s what Jesus Christ had to say about sola Scriptura:

And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. (St. Matthew 18:17)

Jesus does not tell His disciples to use sola Scriptura to solve their problems; He commands them to take them to the Church–no wonder the Apostles understand that the Church is the “pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Tm 3:15)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Old_Scholar]

The rule to believe what the early church leaders had to say is a good one. I believe that was rule number 2. Rule 3 and 4 are good ones as well. So what did the early church have to say about Scripture?

The early church fathers knew that what the apostles preached that had to do with our salvation and faith as well as morals was then written down so that we would know the truth. They also believed what was written was sufficient

Tertullian said: "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

The early church fathers believed that what was preached or taught was the oral presentation of Scriptural truth. Neither Tertullian or Irenaeus claimed that there were other issues of doctrine or tradition that was not found in Scripture.

Irenaeus believed that Church doctrine was never transmitted exclusively viva voce—this was a Gnostic line of thought. It was common knowledge and taken for granted in that time that for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had to establish its Scriptural basis first. Even today, the RCC still makes the claim that all their doctrines are established in Scripture. I disagree with that, however, they still make the claim.

Cyril of Jerusalem also held the belief that his authority as a bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures in his teaching. This is from one of his lectures:

“This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. **For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” **(The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Lecture 4.17)

"But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith…And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts". Ibid, Lecture 5.12

It is said that by the end of the 3rd century, virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church Fathers.

If in fact, there was some other “oral” teaching that the apostles made that is not written down in Scripture, then I feel certain that someone should be able to show proof of that. Who would know what was said? No one living today or for the last 1900 years, has heard anything the apostles had to say. Or is there anyone naive enough to believe that the oral word has been passed down “orally” through all this time? To believe there was something else taught by the apostles that is not in Scripture, wouldn’t we have to have some “written” evidence.

I would ask that someone explain what spiritual “truth” would be omitted from the competence of the Bible to supply? What “good work” is unprovided for?

 

[Ignatius]

Why does the Catholic church reject Sola Scriptura?

Because it is a false, extrabiblical doctrine of man. It did not exist prior to the 16th century.

Now I have one for you.

Why do you accept false doctrine of men instead of following the teachings handed down by the Apostles through the Church which Jesus Christ founded for that very purpose?

Your servant in Christ.

 

[Static]

The early church fathers knew that what the apostles preached that had to do with our salvation and faith as well as morals was then written down so that we would know the truth. They also believed what was written was sufficient
…

Where does scripture say it is sufficient ?
Tertullian said: "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."
…

Anyone can cut 'n paste Early Church Fathers out of context all day long to prove what they believe just like they do the scriptures.

Tertullian also said : "Whenever it shall be clear that the truth of the Christians discipline & faith are present, there also will be found the truth of the Scriptures & of their explanation, & of all the Christian traditions.
The early church fathers believed that what was preached or taught was the oral presentation of Scriptural truth. Neither Tertullian or Irenaeus claimed that there were other issues of doctrine or tradition that was not found in Scripture.

Irenaeus believed that Church doctrine was never transmitted exclusively viva voce—this was a Gnostic line of thought. It was common knowledge and taken for granted in that time that for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had to establish its Scriptural basis first. Even today, the RCC still makes the claim that all their doctrines are established in Scripture. I disagree with that, however, they still make the claim.
…

Notice you said, " I disagree with that." You against the church that Christ established, hmmmmmmm. Which doctrine(s) are not biblical ? You are the one trying to make the claim that Sola Scriptura is scriptural when indeed it is foreign to the scriptures.
continued…

 

[Static]

Cyril of Jerusalem also held the belief that his authority as a bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures in his teaching. This is from one of his lectures:

“This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. **For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” **(The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Lecture 4.17)
…

They run hand in hand. Read what you quoted from Cyril again. "In regard to the divine & holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures.

Plus Old School, what scriptures was Cyril talking about since the Bible had not yet been put under one cover as of yet ? This was before the councils that were held to determine what was considered the scriptures.
"But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith…And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts". Ibid, Lecture 5.12
…

Awesome ! Glad you finally agree with us now.
It is said that by the end of the 3rd century, virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church Fathers.

If in fact, there was some other “oral” teaching that the apostles made that is not written down in Scripture, then I feel certain that someone should be able to show proof of that. Who would know what was said? No one living today or for the last 1900 years, has heard anything the apostles had to say. Or is there anyone naive enough to believe that the oral word has been passed down “orally” through all this time? To believe there was something else taught by the apostles that is not in Scripture, wouldn’t we have to have some “written” evidence.

I would ask that someone explain what spiritual “truth” would be omitted from the competence of the Bible to supply? What “good work” is unprovided for?
…

It’s funny that you have to use the Fathers of the Early Church to try & prove Sola Scriptura. Can you not find your proof from the scriptures alone ?

How in 2 Tim 3:8 is St. Paul able to name the Pharaoh’s magicians from the time of Moses since they aren’t even mentioned in the Old Testament ?

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[Old_Scholar]

Because it is a false, extrabiblical doctrine of man. It did not exist prior to the 16th century.

Now I have one for you.

Why do you accept false doctrine of men instead of following the teachings handed down by the Apostles through the Church which Jesus Christ founded for that very purpose?

Your servant in Christ.

Before I answer your question, please answer mine. Why did the Roman Catholic Church stray from believing that the Scriptures were the final truth and that all doctrines had to be based on them? I gave you several cases, and I have many more, but if you aren’t even going to comment on them, why bother?

I showed you several of your early church leaders that believed that wholeheartedly, yet the church strayed from their teachings. Why?

 

[po18guy]

Before I answer your question, please answer mine. Why did the Roman Catholic Church stray from believing that the Scriptures were the final truth and that all doctrines had to be based on them? I gave you several cases, and I have many more, but if you aren’t even going to comment on them, why bother?

I showed you several of your early church leaders that believed that wholeheartedly, yet the church strayed from their teachings. Why?

1. The scripture was produced by the church and the church existed before the bible. Any perceived deviation is your misunderstanding.
2. Remember first that you are blinded by the confining nature of sola scriptura, which relies on the self-admitted incomplete bible. All of your writings reflect this blindness. Christ did not use a bible. He did not authorize or suggest one. He did not write one. He sent His Spirit to teach and guide the church. Do you prefer the fallible interpretations of the bible to the Word of God, which is Jesus Christ?
3. You have again cherry picked writings that support your peculiar views. There is a pit in each of your cherries.
4. As with so many who are jailed by sola scriptura, you have church history exactly backward. This is the mark of the demon. The bible is a product of the church, it is NOT the other way around, no matter how many times you pound your shoe on the podium and claim otherwise… The spirit of antichrist that is so active in this world, as predicted by Jesus and the Apostles, and written of in scripture, has sown the seeds of division and false prophecy.
5. If the Universal church failed, then when and why? It must be written in the bible somewhere. Nope. It only says the gates of hell will not prevail. How do you overcome that?

OS, you appear to be interpreting scripture using a funhouse mirror. You hold scripture just right and it will say whatever you need to hear. I prefer scripture that challenges, not that which is conformed to my personal preferences, or the controversial beliefs of a separated church.

LET ME RESPOND FOR YOU: “You are wrong. I am right”

Christ’s peace.

 

[SilentKnight]

The rule to believe what the early church leaders had to say is a good one. I believe that was rule number 2. Rule 3 and 4 are good ones as well. So what did the early church have to say about Scripture?

The early church fathers knew that what the apostles preached that had to do with our salvation and faith as well as morals was then written down so that we would know the truth. They also believed what was written was sufficient

Tertullian said: "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

Scholar,

Working on limited time at the moment, my first comment regards what you’ve written above and is simply that this is not an exclusive statement. It’s like me saying that apples were shipped from Japan to the U.S. earlier today. A true statement. One, however, that does not necessarily mean that all types of apples known to man, or that all the apples on the planet were shipped from Japan to the U.S. earlier today. Follow me?

The early church fathers believed that what was preached or taught was the oral presentation of Scriptural truth. Neither Tertullian or Irenaeus claimed that there were other issues of doctrine or tradition that was not found in Scripture.

I’m not an expert on all that these men ever said and wrote, so I can neither confirm nor deny. (Though, I have my suspicions.)

Irenaeus believed that Church doctrine was never transmitted exclusively viva voce—this was a Gnostic line of thought. **It was common knowledge and taken for granted in that time that for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had to establish its Scriptural basis first.
**

Scholar, I don’t want to sound patronizing but that’s a silly thing to say considering the fact that no one knew for sure what was Scripture and what was not until near the end of the third century. That supposition is just absurd.

On what basis were the NT Scriptures declared scripture to begin with? A scriptural basis? Obviously not.

Cyril of Jerusalem also held the belief that his authority as a bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures in his teaching. This is from one of his lectures:

“This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. **For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” **

(The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Lecture 4.17)

Ok, so, Cyril is encouraging everyone to preach from the Scriptures. Great. So does one of the key documents of the second Vatican Council. I’ll quote from it later if I get a minute to do so.

In the meantime…

"But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture.

Did you hear what he just said? Hold only to that faith which is BOTH established from all Scripture AND delivered to you by the Church. A critical difference between this and “Hold only to that faith which is established by the Scriptures.” The latter statement allows for Sola Scriptura, the former is distintly Catholic. It says that, yes, the Scriptures are primary. HOWEVER, this is not an “either/or” scenario. It’s not either the scriptures, OR the Church. It’s the interpretation of the scriptures that the Church gives you.

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith…And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts". Ibid, Lecture 5.12

Again a reference to tradition…

If in fact, there was some other “oral” teaching that the apostles made that is not written down in Scripture, then I feel certain that someone should be able to show proof of that. Who would know what was said? No one living today or for the last 1900 years, has heard anything the apostles had to say. Or is there anyone naive enough to believe that the oral word has been passed down “orally” through all this time? To believe there was something else taught by the apostles that is not in Scripture, wouldn’t we have to have some “written” evidence.

No. We wouldn’t. Have you ever seent he movie “A Few Good Men”? It’s got one of may all-time favorite refutations of Sola Scirptura in it. A lawyer in the movie drops a marine manual on the witness stand and essentially asks the witness if everything the Marine will ever need to know is listed in the book. The Marine basically says, “Absolutely, sir. It’s all there in that handbook.” The lawyer nods and then asks the Marine to shwo him in the manual where the mess hall is. “Sorr, sir?” the Marine replies. The lawyer pressed that he wants the Marine to show him directions to the mess hall in this “comprehensive” manual. Marine says the directions arent in there. “What, you don’t eat?” says the lawyer. “No, I eat. Three squares a day.”

“Well, how do you get there to the mess hall if the directions arent in the manual?” says the lawyer.

I’ll let you come up with the answer.

Gotta run.

Peace,

SK

 

[guanophore]

Before I answer your question, please answer mine. Why did the Roman Catholic Church stray from believing that the Scriptures were the final truth and that all doctrines had to be based on them? I gave you several cases, and I have many more, but if you aren’t even going to comment on them, why bother?

I showed you several of your early church leaders that believed that wholeheartedly, yet the church strayed from their teachings. Why?

Your question is not a valid one, OS, becauae all the Apostolic faiths who received the teaching and handed it down believe the same thing. This is not a “Roman” phenomenon. Therefore, you need to rephrase your question in a manner that makes more sense.

The gospel that was taught by the Apostles was whole and entire before one word of the NT was ever written. This is the gospel that was committed to faithful men, who were able to teach others also. Yes, the Holy writings are essential, and since they were produced by Catholics, or Catholics, about Catholics, then there are not Catholic teachings that “stray” from them.

The NT represents Apostolic Teaching. the Teaching is not confined to it.