Why don’t Catholics believe that Bible alone is Enough?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chagel_333
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maximus1 said:
Your Sola Scriptura compels you to believe that.
Click to expand...
I’m not Sola Scriptural whatsoever

How come you still do not understand this?

Before Jesus’ Apostles Orally Preached the Gospel,
And later - yet still before the Gospel and the rest of the NT was put into Written Form,
JESUS spoke of the GOSPEL which must be Preached throughout the world;
BEFORE His Gospel was Preached by others, and later put into Written Form?

___________________________________________________________

REF:

**At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

And this GOSPEL of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. — JESUS
 
Last edited:
I am not contradicting that Jesus said that. When he did, whatever he intended by Gospel was oral. At the time Jesus proclaims teach it throughout the world, it is oral.
Then
Luke describes the landscape of men compiling the oral in seperate written Gospels written by the men Like describes.
There were in fact many Gospels as Luke wrote. Inspired men picked four and did not select others.
THATS A CHOICE OF MEN DECIDING WHICH GOSPELS WERE JUESUS OWN( From your own post, " Jesus own").
Either that choice was inspired or not. There is no question a choice was made we have some of these books. Didache was one I described. Other than Paul’s letters arguably the earliest.
Barnabas had one, Peter, Judas,Thomas ( arguably written before the 4). There is the Q pieces. Mary M’s name appears. And others.
The selection of four has a historical record.
If the selection was inspired, the 4 Gospels are Jesus Gospels.
If the selection was not inspired, then the 4 were random. You leave their authenticity to coincidence.
Either way you cannot escape inspired tradition and accept the 4 books as authentic Gospel.
At that point you are picking and choosing inspired tradition based on what?
 
The ground that the same men, time and place, inspired to select the 4 Gospels, selected it. How do you toss out part of a whole deliberative event? In fact it would take a later event within the tradition to finally accept revelation as part of the books of the Bible. An event of inspired men if you were to believe supplementation was authentic.
 
Last edited:
Therefore one always as to reach for a tradition to even accept that the books of the Bible are inspired.

Protestants whether they like it or not, whether they admit it or not, do accept a tradition. The very canon of the Bible is tradition, one that even they must accept.
 
If they don’t accept that event of selection, as I see it, they cannot accept the authenticity of the 4 Gospels. There is no basis.
Martin Luther, or someone, walking around finding a bound book on a rock with an angel saying, this is it, didn’t happen.
Esubius or Jerome, or whoever, might have identified the books in and out, initially, has to abide by the same truth. Inspiration. But at some point you have to identify the inspiration of THE CHOICE. God IS the DECIDER, as Bush used to say, but he had to inspire a man to publish the choice. That’s tradition any way you slice it.
Their problem to me stems from the fact that writing the Gospel to begin with does not originate as an idea via Jesus during his lifetime.
Next
As Luke describes many people set off just like him to amas and write.
Now you have this pile of Gospels.
4 are selected.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
Either way you cannot escape inspired tradition and accept the 4 books as authentic Gospel.
Click to expand...
With Me having constantly having to mention that I’m not a Sola Scripturalist -
your comments continue to be lacking

I’m somehat versed in
Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Apostolic Tradition, Holy-Spirit-Inspired Magisterium…

Plus being a champion of reminding any who suggest that:

God has not been been directly involved in His Revelations to Man
including the “Gospel” which Jesus spoke of…
along with all Accepted Apostolic Revelation and Preaching -
as well as all Accepted Written Forms of His Word - Jesus…

Yes – I know that the term Gospel
usually designates the written record of Jesus Christ’s Words and Deeds/Miracles…
which in turn were Inspired under the direction of God’s Holy Spirit

And - One cannot separate “Gospel” from Jesus’ Words and Action…
which stem directly from God the Father

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the Gospel of God— the Gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son.

For a fuller Understanding I suggest reading pertinant portions of the Magisterium - which connect with God’s Revelation to Man - along with Scriptures, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium - as can be relatively readily located with the CCC

_
 
Last edited:
BT3241 said:
for 1500 years the church survived without a written version of the bible available to followers.
Click to expand...
Umm… please read up on the question. This is absolutely an inaccurate (although not too uncommon) misunderstanding…
BT3241 said:
The bible did not fall out of the sky when Jesus ascended it took hundreds of years to come up with it - it wasn’t printed until the 1500s and is still being interpreted and revised all the time.
Click to expand...
Umm… no. It wasn’t printed with movable type until the mid-second millennium. (Then again, movable type wasn’t invented until the mid-second millennium, so that doesn’t prove much.) Nevertheless, the Bible was available – in painstakingly hand-copied versions! – throughout that period.
 
Scripture is our primary knowledge about God’s doing in the past. Tradition teaches us what was said before, and how all those who came before us understood these things. The Magisterium is for today, existing to lead us down the good road where the truth is (as Jeremiah says, 6:16), and continually walk in it, from one century through to the next.

Protestants are the Sadducees of today, and I consider all the things that they’ve missed. Judas Maccabeus, Tobias, Judith in Scripture. John Chrysostom, Justin the Martyr, Augustine in Tradition. And one of the greatest missed opportunities in the Magisterium for them is Humanae Vitae. More than just rejecting two of the means of God’s revelation to the Church, they miss so much of our history and miss out on so much good teaching. And one of the greatest sorrows is that they by and large miss the opportunity to meet His saints and to learn from them.

We worship one God, and 1500 years later we’re all divided. The Church’s original division was East and West, and now we divide ourselves based on whose teaching we follow. Paul lamented that some prided themselves and divided themselves by who their particular “teachers” were, but we just can’t seem to help ourselves, can we?

Some say Scripture is sufficient. But what does it mean to be sufficient? And how can it be sufficient for everyone, and everyone claim it to be sufficient, and none of us be able to agree on the first things? Does Scripture’s being sufficient mean that there will never be divisions so long as we follow this rule? It seems unlikely to me, as many say this and just as many are divided, but maybe those others just missed some important step. Yes, many certainly have missed a step (or few), and those steps that were missed were steps taken to go around the other legs of the stool that make up our understanding of God.
 
I am trying to decipher your post which confuses me.
Perhaps you can clarify a few things.
" God has not been directly involved in his revelation to man, including the Gospel which Jesus spoke of."
God, to a Roman Catholic, is the trinity as a best definition theologically. How you mean the word God has me unsure of what you wrote. Jesus was the fulfilment of revelation.
Next, my point may have frustrated you and for that, sorry. My point was strictly limited to the basic authenticity of the 4 selected Gospels and inauthenticity of apocryphal Gospels, and identifying that selection process as inspired tradition. It was I admit an argument I assume addressed Sola.
I didn’t know you intended to include Paul’s writings within" Gospel."
Paul of course focuses primarily on Christ Jesus, rather than Jesus Christ. He uses the term IN CHRISTU some number well over 100 times. Your quote from Paul identifies distinction from at least three of the 4 Gospels.
I guess I miss your point. Perhaps you can clarify
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top