Scripture is NOT the source of Church teachings

[OneForTruth]

So, in other words, “faith alone” saves, under the condition that when what we’re calling “faith” is really faith (meaning belief) plus obedience, plus works of mercy.

But belief alone, without obedience and without mercy cannot save, and the Scriptures are absolutely clear about that.

That is exactly what scripture teaches. It teaches that we are justified by faith THAT works - not faith AND works. The Gift Of Salvation Document (ECTII - sequal to Evangelicals and Catholics Together) affirms this.

 

[Flopfoot]

OneForTruth, you are taking this thread off topic, discussing a different issue (which I may also point out, has been discussed to death on CAF, and then some).

But to answer your repeated, original post in this thread, in the light of what the OP is saying, the simple fact of the matter is that your interpretation of “the implications of the gospel” is wrong. Justification by faith alone is not part of the gospel message. How can this be so? Because you are a fallible human, not God, and you can get stuff wrong.

 

[OneForTruth]

Believe what you like. My continued suggestion is that the CC follow scripture first and THEN, if necessary, branch out from it. The scripture is crystal clear.

 

[jmcrae]

Believe what you like. My continued suggestion is that the CC follow scripture first and THEN, if necessary, branch out from it. The scripture is crystal clear.

What dio you think Christians did during the 400 years before we got the Bible? (psst: They looked to Holy Tradition. )

For that matter, how did the Christians of 405 AD know for certain that the books they had in their hands were the contents of the Bible? (psst: Holy Tradition told them so. )

 

[Contarini]

What dio you think Christians did during the 400 years before we got the Bible?

jmcrae,

Surely you know better than to repeat this nonsense about the Bible not existing before the end of the fourth century? You know perfectly well that all the books we now consider Scripture were not only written long before that but were considered canonical by at least some Christians, and *most *of them were considered canonical by all orthodox Christians from the second century at least.

So why are you repeating this? This completely false and misleading picture of the development of the canon (as if Christians wandered around without a Bible until boom! the Church called a Council and handed Christians a complete Bible) weakens one of the strongest arguments for Catholicism. It baffles me that Catholics on this forum persist in wording things in this way. You are shooting yourselves in the foot.

This is somewhat off topic, but I think the best way of getting Protestants to deal with this issue is to focus on a single book, such as 2 Peter. I was bold enough to suggest to my students this morning that if they did not trust the authority of the early Church (which I made it clear I did) they really had no reason to rule out the possibility that 2 Peter doesn’t belong in the canon. Most scholars, after all, think it was written in the 2nd century. The only reason to think otherwise is that we don’t want to second-guess the decision of the early Church.

In other words, I think you guys have a winning argument here, but you throw it away by these untenable claims about the early Church “not having a Bible.”

Edwin

 

[Odell]

That is exactly what scripture teaches. It teaches that we are justified by faith THAT works - not faith AND works. The Gift Of Salvation Document (ECTII - sequal to Evangelicals and Catholics Together) affirms this.

well we all agree then that faith by its self is not enough. And that works by themself is jnot enough.

Faith - works = dead faith

therfore faith needs something, works add the two together what do you get? faith And works or faith That works. I think we are talking past each other. you need them both.

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae,

Surely you know better than to repeat this nonsense about the Bible not existing before the end of the fourth century? You know perfectly well that all the books we now consider Scripture were not only written long before that but were considered canonical by at least some Christians, and *most *of them were considered canonical by all orthodox Christians from the second century at least.

So why are you repeating this? This completely false and misleading picture of the development of the canon (as if Christians wandered around without a Bible until boom! the Church called a Council and handed Christians a complete Bible) weakens one of the strongest arguments for Catholicism. It baffles me that Catholics on this forum persist in wording things in this way. You are shooting yourselves in the foot.

This is somewhat off topic, but I think the best way of getting Protestants to deal with this issue is to focus on a single book, such as 2 Peter. I was bold enough to suggest to my students this morning that if they did not trust the authority of the early Church (which I made it clear I did) they really had no reason to rule out the possibility that 2 Peter doesn’t belong in the canon. Most scholars, after all, think it was written in the 2nd century. The only reason to think otherwise is that we don’t want to second-guess the decision of the early Church.

In other words, I think you guys have a winning argument here, but you throw it away by these untenable claims about the early Church “not having a Bible.”

Edwin

You need to hurry up and convert so that you can teach Catechism classes, and set us all straight.

 

[water]

dcdurel,

I am not here to debate, but for the sake of all readers, well maybe not all, could you please write using the same font at least. It makes my eyes rolling up and down for adjusting to the font type, size and colors.

Thanks!

 

[Rach620]

I, too, figured this thread was some Protestant attack on Catholicism’s great love for Tradition.

Sadly, I was wrong…I’m not sure what kind of misguided attempt this is to differentiate Catholicism from other Christians, however ‘confused’ or anti-Catholic they might be, but it’s certainly not one which any orthodox Catholic can buy into.

My sense is that this thread comes mainly as a reaction to Bible-thumping, in an attempt to show how great the value of our Tradition is. (We’ve had a Counter-Reformation…why not a Counter-Thumping? )

But in the process of asserting that, the OP has completely lost touch with the authority of Sacred Scripture, the divinely revealed Word of God which has the *highest authority *for Catholics in matters of faith. [St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church and arguably one of her greatest theologians, would admit that the declarations of Church Councils share in this level of authority (because the Holy Spirit continues to speak through the magisterium), but no orthodox theologian would ever claim that Tradition stands completely apart from Scripture in its authority.]

I think it is important to remember that Christ Himself is the Incarnate **Word **of God. The Word of the Father is at the same time the *action *of the Father. We were created through this Word and this action, and we were redeemed by this Word through His saving action. He is the Truth which is being spoken and which speaks throughout Sacred Scripture, from Genesis through the New Testament.

Think about the Mass. The Liturgy of the Word, at which readings from Scripture are proclaimed with reverence. The priest kisses the book of the Gospels, and we respond to the proclamation of the Gospel-- Praise to YOU, Lord Jesus Christ. Christ IS the Word spoken by the Father, the Word which is proclaimed at Mass.

The Bible is not merely a collection of the stories of Christ’s life and a collection of His teachings; it is through these sacred words that God truly reveals Himself through all ages. We can never, ever underestimate the significance of the Bible without losing touch with the very foundations of our Faith.

I am in no way saying that the Protestant interpretation of Scripture and Tradition is lacking–I believe it is. But it is also important to remember that we can **never **have one without the other, and that what is inspired by the Holy Spirit (ie Scripture and the infallible teachings of the Magisterium) deserve our complete reverence and respect.

 

[dcdurel]

Works are the inevitable fruit of living faith - faith which is the gift of God and not a counterfeit faith.

You are teaching a heresy in which we lose our free will if we have faith. Catholics must pay attention here. Many Protestants constantly appeal to this line of reasoning, that “works are the inevitable fruit of living faith,” which clearly implies that obedience always flows from those who have faith, in other words,** we lose our free will once we have faith. ** This is heresy.
The true teaching of the Church is that once we have faith, obedience makes that faith a living faith. For faith brings grace, throught baptism, and that **grace makes obedience possible, but does not force us to obey. **

Examples:
In the beginning the the letter to the Romans Paul writes,
“First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.” (Rom 1:8)

St. Paul says their faith was so outstanding, it was spoken of throughout the whole world.

But, later he writes to the same Romans,
“But after your hardness and impenitent heart treasure up to yourself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:” (Rom 2:5-6)
Even though their faith was outstanding, he said they were hard of heart and impenitent.

The Galatians were the same way.
St. Paul writes in Gal 3:26-27
“For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
Notice he says they **ALL HAD FAITH. **

But to these same Galatians he writes, "19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, jealousies, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Contentions, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

Notice he had to warn these same Galatians, who all had faith, at least twice, that they would not go to heaven if they did not turn away from these sins, sins which were mortal sins, since these sins cause them to lose heaven.

These are only one of the many heresies that Protestants constantly teach, not because they are bad, but because the bible does NOT present the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. It only presents salvation history, with parts of some of the Gospel teachings mentioned here and there. It is the fundamental belief of Protestants, that the bible alone is their authority which prevents them from accepting the Gospel that Jesus taught. Christianity does not come from the bible. It comes from Jesus Christ.
All this proves again what Jesus said, that salvation comes from believing the Gospel the apostles preached and taught. It does not come from reading what they wrote. And scripture does NOT claim to present a summary of the Gospel they preached and taught in any book, or chapter of the bible. The Gospel they preached and taught was the Catholic faith. The Galatians, Romans, Corinthians, etc were all Catholic. They learned their Catholic faith from the apostles. It was the Gospel that they preached and taught. The Gospel the apostles taught and preached was the Catholic faith, starting with the initial proclamation, that Jesus came to free us from the slavery of sin. The whole purpose of the Catholic faith is to give us the grace to live a life free from the slavery of sin and to teach us the moral guidelines that show us how to live free of sin, so we can be in union with God. This is what Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict VI constantly teach. When they say we must proclaim the Gospel, they mean proclaim the Catholic faith. Study their writings on evangelization over and over.

  My point in these posts is to start from the beginning, from Jesus Christ.  To show that the entire Gospel was taught only to the apostles.  That this entire Gospel came from Jesus, not from scripture.  This entire Gospel was handed down that same way Jesus handed it down, by tradition.  It was taught, preached and by example. In other words, by tradition.  The apostles appointed bishops as their successors. The bishops did not appoint themselves.  These bishops were Catholic, because they learned their faith from the apostles, either directly or indirectly. The Gospel the apostles taught was the Catholic faith.

When the Popes write that through the Gospel, we can change ourselves, and then the world, they mean by following the teachings of the Catholic faith, we can change ourselves and then the world. Because the Catholic faith is the Gospel that Jesus taught and preached.

 

[Flopfoot]

Believe what you like. My continued suggestion is that the CC follow scripture first and THEN, if necessary, branch out from it. The scripture is crystal clear.

Scripture is so crystal clear that we have thousands of denominations of Protestants, all who consider Scripture to be the sole authority, all who believe different things, because they interpret Scripture differently. And not just separate denominations, but even within a denomination, many Protestants who have read the bible and come to different conclusions.

Scripture is so crystal clear that there are bits in it which appear to contradict itself, and to explain to the average person how there is actually no contradiction involves at least 15 minutes of complicated explanations and fancy words.

So crystal clear that people spend years of their life studying it and never figure out exactly what it means. If it was so clear then why would we need “bible scholars”, or even religion teachers in sunday schools for that matter? If it’s so clear then a 12 year old child should be able to read it and understand it without needing a teacher. Yet not even the most learned scholars can agree on what it says.

Etc.

Suggest what you like. The CC will stick to the truth.

 

[dcdurel]

jmcrae,

Surely you know better than to repeat this nonsense about the Bible not existing before the end of the fourth century? You know perfectly well that all the books we now consider Scripture were not only written long before that but were considered canonical by at least some Christians, and *most *of them were considered canonical by all orthodox Christians from the second century at least.
Edwin

The problem is that no one knew for sure which books were inspired and which were not. By 240 AD or so, there was agreement on the Gospels. But there was no agreement on the other books til 363 AD or some time around then at the council of Rome, I believe. Before that time there was no agreement, and the canon they came up with was different than any canon that had been proposed till then.

And again,  Jesus says salvation comes from believing the Gospel the apostles taught and preached, (Mark 16:16) because to the apostles alone Jesus revealed everything.  No where does the bible claim to present this Gospel that the apostles taught and preached.  The four Gospels only claim to be narratives of the life of Jesus.  They do not claim to present the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. 
The bible is great for salvation history.  But, it cannot teach doctrine by itself.  It does not even claim to teach the Gospel the apostles taught.  So it does not matter if the entire bible was written 1 hour after Jesus ascended into heaven.   It still does not claim to present the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. And Jesus said who ever believes this Gospel and is baptized will be saved.

Mark 16:16
“And he said to them, Go you into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned.”
He did not say whoever believes scripture will be saved.
He did not say whoever believes the bible will be saved. He did not say whoever believes the Gospels the apostles wrote will be saved.
He did not say whoever believes Luther’s or Calvin’s gospel will be saved.
He said whoever believes the Gospel **the apostles preached will be saved. **
And we know EXACTLY what they preached because they handed that Gospel over entirely to their successors, the Bishops of the Catholic Church. This Gospel they preached was simply the Catholic faith. It is a historical fact. Salvation comes through the Catholic Church.

 

[Sixtus]

From studying history, the Catechism, Popes writings etc., it seems to me that not a single teaching of the Catholic Church comes from scripture.

Not sure I share that sentiment. So far as I am aware, 99% that she teaches comes from the Scriptures.

But she existed before the codification and canonisation of the Scriptures. So a certain amount she will have learnt from the tradition of the Apostles. So too that which was handed down.

The Mass pretty much the same as we celebrate it today has been handed down and existed before the Bible. Some sources suggest it has changed little since the first century.

A population where 90% can read is a recent phenomena, even among those of the early Church after the bible was codified, the vast majority could not read it. So it was of not much use to the vast majority.

What need would the early Church for codifying that which she was doing that she learned from the tradition of the Apostles?

Arguably it was only the other areas which she was less familar that she needed a written text to substantiate.

 

[Rach620]

Quite honestly, I find this new definition of ‘the Gospel the apostles preached’ quite comical.

How are we to know what Gospel the apostles preached *apart from *Sacred Scripture? It’s the basis of their preaching and also the record of what they preached in the (very) early Church.

The problem is that no one knew for sure which books were inspired and which were not. By 240 AD or so, there was agreement on the Gospels. But there was no agreement on the other books til 363 AD or some time around then at the council of Rome, I believe. Before that time there was no agreement, and the canon they came up with was different than any canon that had been proposed till then.

It’s hard to discuss the formation of the canon without vastly oversimplifying the situation. But whatever the circumstances, we are bound to believe, as Catholics, that the declaration of the canon by an ecumenical council is an infallible one. We believe that *all *the books of the Bible are inspired by the Holy Spirit, without question.

No where does the bible claim to present this Gospel that the apostles taught and preached. The four Gospels only claim to be narratives of the life of Jesus. They do not claim to present the Gospel the apostles taught and preached.
The bible is great for salvation history. But, it cannot teach doctrine by itself. It does not even claim to teach the Gospel the apostles taught.
He did not say whoever believes scripture will be saved.
He did not say whoever believes the bible will be saved. He did not say whoever believes the Gospels the apostles wrote will be saved.
He did not say whoever believes Luther’s or Calvin’s gospel will be saved.
He said whoever believes the Gospel **the apostles preached will be saved. **

What on earth are you talking about?

The Gospel the apostles preached and teached IS the Gospel of the Scriptures–we cannot believe that it is any different or stands apart from it! It is the standard to which every Catholic theologian since the Fathers has held his work; the ‘preaching and teaching of the Gospel’ can’t take place w/o the written Gospel!

To reduce the significance of Scripture to ‘narratives of the life of Jesus’ and ‘salvation history’ is ridiculous and heretical because it denies their divine authorship.

“But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” - 2 Timothy 3:14-17

“Search the scriptures: for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the same are they that give testimony of me.” - John 5:39

“Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.” - 2 Peter 1:20-21

“In those days Peter, rising up in the midst of his brethren, said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty): Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus…” Acts 1:15-16

And we know EXACTLY what they preached because they handed that Gospel over entirely to their successors, the Bishops of the Catholic Church. This Gospel they preached was simply the Catholic faith. It is a historical fact. Salvation comes through the Catholic Church.

Salvation does come through the Catholic Church, because the successors of the apostles are the ones entrusted with the interpretation of the truths contained in Sacred Scripture. It’s not that the Magisterium is endowed with this vague ‘knowledge’ of divine things that they are guiding us with…they’re interpreting Sacred Scripture because it is the Word of God.

Scripture, as the Deposit of Faith, was handed over to the Apostles–for them to *guard *and *promulgate *(an activity which apparently hasn’t worked out so well, given the topic of this thread ). It’s not as if we can dispose with the Bible because we’ve got the successors of the apostles to guide us! It’s still the divinely revealed Word of God–the *highest *authority in Christianity through which we can understand our faith.

 

[Rach620]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia–maybe this will clarify?

The transmission of the inspired writings consists in the delivery of Scripture by the Apostles to their successors with the right, the duty, and the power to continue its promulgation, to preserve its integrity and identity, to explain its meaning, to use it in proving and illustrating Catholic teaching, to oppose and condemn any attack upon its doctrine, or any abuse of its meaning.
…
The authentic text, legitimately promulgated, is a source and rule of faith, though it remains only a means or instrument in the hands of the teaching body of the Church, which alone has the right of authoritatively interpreting Scripture.

 

[jmcrae]

The good news of the Gospel is that Christ died on the Cross offering Himself as Sacrificial Victim for the sins of humanity and for the sin of Adam, and then rose again from the dead in His body, thus opening Heaven to the human race.

I don’t think this is ever said straight out anywhere in the Gospels themselves; I believe that we know this through the oral tradition. Unless someone can point me to a verse, but I don’t think it’s in there explicitly.

 

[Rach620]

The good news of the Gospel is that Christ died on the Cross offering Himself as Sacrificial Victim for the sins of humanity and for the sin of Adam, and then rose again from the dead in His body, thus opening Heaven to the human race.

I don’t think this is ever said straight out anywhere in the Gospels themselves; I believe that we know this through the oral tradition. Unless someone can point me to a verse, but I don’t think it’s in there explicitly.

“In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…All things were made by him, and without him was made nothing. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to give testimony to the light, that all men might believe. He was not the light, but was to give testimony to the light.
That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believeth in his name. Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth” - John 1:1-14

“For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him would never die, but have eternal life.” - John 3:16

That good news is proclaimed not only here, but **throughout **the Bible, in the Old and New Testaments! It is everywhere! The Tradition of the Church only teaches that this is the meaning of Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection *because *this is the correct interpretation of the truths found in Scripture.

Even things which are not explicitly stated in Scripture (such as the Trinity), do have a basis in the Scriptural texts. If they did not, we would not believe in them. The Bible is our supreme authority; the successors of the Apostles are the only rightful interpreters of that text.

Opposite to what the OP has said, there is nothing which we believe as Catholics that does *not *follow from a correct interpretation of the written Word of God, found in the Bible. To claim otherwise is, imo, an overreaction to sola scriptura Protestants, but is just as bad an interpretation of where authority on matters of faith comes from as the Protestant one!

 

[jmcrae]

Opposite to what the OP has said, there is nothing which we believe as Catholics that does *not *follow from a correct interpretation of the written Word of God, found in the Bible. To claim otherwise is, imo, an overreaction to sola scriptura Protestants, but is just as bad an interpretation of where authority on matters of faith comes from as the Protestant one!

I think the OP’s point was that we had the Tradition first, before we had the Bible. The Bible follows the Tradition because the Tradition came first.

The Tradition does not “follow” the Bible, because it precedes it - there was no Bible yet when Christ gave the Tradition to the Apostles. This doesn’t mean that the Bible contains elements that contradict Tradition - this is not possible - rather, it is simply a question of the sequence of events. Tradition first. Bible second.

 

[guanophore]

So far as I am aware, 99% that she teaches comes from the Scriptures.

I think what the OP is trying to say is that the teachings and the
apostolic traditions came from Jesus, and the message was preached for decades before any of it was written down. The New Testament reflects the apostolic tradition, not the other way around.

But she existed before the codification and canonisation of the Scriptures. So a certain amount she will have learnt from the tradition of the Apostles. So too that which was handed down.[/quoote]

I think the point the OP was trying to make is that it was ALL handed down.
Sixtus;2179963:

A population where 90% can read is a recent phenomena, even among those of the early Church after the bible was codified, the vast majority could not read it. So it was of not much use to the vast majority.

Which is why, until the printing press came out, almost all the teaching was oral.

What need would the early Church for codifying that which she was doing that she learned from the tradition of the Apostles?

Apostles dying?

Quite honestly, I find this new definition of ‘the Gospel the apostles preached’ quite comical.

What year do you think the first gospel record was written, and began to be spread around?

How are we to know what Gospel the apostles preached *apart from *

Sacred Scripture? It’s the basis of their preaching and also the record of what they preached in the (very) early Church.

I think what the OP is sayin gis that the message of the gospel has been preserved in the apostolic succession. We see parts of it in the written record. The New Testament is not the “basis” of their preaching, since it was not yet written when they were preaching the gospel.

We believe that *all *

the books of the Bible are inspired by the Holy Spirit, without question.
I think the point of the OP is that we believe this BECAUSE of the apostolic tradition.

What on earth are you talking about?

I think the OP is saying that the Church is the pillar and the bulwark of truth, not the scripture. It is the church that originated and authenticated the scripture, not the other way around.

The Gospel the apostles preached and teached IS the Gospel of the Scriptures–we cannot believe that it is any different or stands apart from it! It is the standard to which every Catholic theologian since the Fathers has held his work; the ‘preaching and teaching of the Gospel’ can’t take place w/o the written Gospel!

I don’t think the OP was saying that it is “different or stands apart” from the scriptures. Just that the divine deposit of truth is not dependent upon them. In fact the preaching and teaching of the Gospel must be able to take place without the written gospel, otherwise, the first decades of the church would have contained no authentic preaching and teaching, which we know is false. It was all oral in the beginning.

To reduce the significance of Scripture to ‘narratives of the life of Jesus’ and ‘salvation history’ is ridiculous and heretical because it denies their divine authorship.

I see your point, but I beleive what the OP is trying to emphasize is that the Spirit of Christ lives in His church, not in the book itself.

 

[guanophore]

“But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” - 2 Timothy 3:14-17

“Search the scriptures: for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the same are they that give testimony of me.” - John 5:39

“Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.” - 2 Peter 1:20-21

“In those days Peter, rising up in the midst of his brethren, said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty): Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus…” Acts 1:15-16

I would like to note that ALL these passages refer to the OLD TESTAMENT. The “scriptures” being referred to here are the law, prophets, and psalms. The NT was barely getting written.

Salvation does come through the Catholic Church, because the successors of the apostles are the ones entrusted with the interpretation of the truths contained in Sacred Scripture. It’s not that the Magisterium is endowed with this vague ‘knowledge’ of divine things that they are guiding us with…they’re interpreting Sacred Scripture because it is the Word of God.

Scripture, as the Deposit of Faith, was handed over to the Apostles–for them to *guard *and *promulgate *(an activity which apparently hasn’t worked out so well, given the topic of this thread ). It’s not as if we can dispose with the Bible because we’ve got the successors of the apostles to guide us! It’s still the divinely revealed Word of God–the *highest *authority in Christianity through which we can understand our faith.

I think this is a little too narrow. Yes, the Catholic Church does protect the written divine deposit of faith in the scriptures, but they were never meant to be the “whole story” and the Deposit of Faith is much larger than the “scripture” as we know it. An most especially, I think the OP is arguing against your closing remark here, that the scriptures ARE NOT the highest authority through which we can understand our faith.