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

[Ignatius]

As Zacchaeus pointed out above Clearly , Just because " Christ quoted Scripture is not enough to justify the claim that He claimed it as the sole standard of truth."

 

[ralfyman]

It’s because the early Church was formed before the Christian biblical canon was completed.

 

[Gorgias]

Again you are missing the point, Jesus constantly uses scripture alone to prove who He was.

Umm… no? The point of His miracles was to demonstrate who He is. No “Scripture” there.

Exactly…

And anyone who knows the NT would see that as stating the obvious truth

There are times that He makes reference to OT narratives and prophecies… but the “proofs” that He offers in response to the people’s requests for them are signs that He performs.

 

[Annie]

Where does the bible say that the bible isn’t enough?

1 Timothy 3:15: “if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth[.]”

Note that the definition of the pillar and ground of truth does not even mention Scripture, which is what one might call a product of the actual “pillar and foundation of truth.”

I think too that your notion of sola scriptura is refuted by what we see in the practice: innumerable interpretations which contradict each other, certainly not a fulfillment of Jesus’s words:

20 And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me. 21 That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
—John 17:20–21

 

[EndTimes]

Umm… no? The point of His miracles was to demonstrate who He is. No “Scripture” there.

No.

You couldn’t know that were it not for Scriptures.

Jesus speaks often about Scriptures and how they MUST be Fulfilled by Him…

Do you know that?

_

 

[Gorgias]

No.

You couldn’t know that were it not for Scriptures.

No… I couldn’t know it other than from Apostolic Tradition. One of the ways that the apostolic teaching has been handed down is a written record. Nevertheless, that’s not relevant to the discussion at hand…

After all, we were talking about how Jesus Himself made his identity known to those He encountered in His earthly ministry. The claim was that He did so solely through recourse to Scripture. And that part is untrue; He not only referenced OT prophecies about himself (to his apostles), He performed miracles for all to see and ponder. “Who is this man…?”, remember?

 

[EndTimes]

No… I couldn’t know it other than from Apostolic Tradition.

And Apostolic Tradition sits upon Jesus’ Gospel as found in Scriptures…

RECALL your words: The point of His miracles was to demonstrate who He is.

Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. Some men brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”

At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”

Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?
Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?

But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.”

When the man got up and went home.

When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.

 

[Gorgias]

And Apostolic Tradition sits upon Jesus’ Gospel as found in Scriptures…

No. From the Catechism:

75 “Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline.”

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

• orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;
• in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.

. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 “In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.” Indeed, “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.”

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it.

 

[EndTimes]

No. From the Catechism:

And… The Catechism sits squarely upon Scriptures.

Have you never looked at the Multitude of Scriptural References in the CCC?

You see, Gorgias, try as you might, one can never avoid Sacred Scriptures…

.

 

[ELCore]

You are making a claim, and I am supposed to provide evidence for it?

Bless your heart.

 

[Gorgias]

And… The Catechism sits squarely upon Scriptures.

And on Apostolic Tradition. Which is distinct from, yet related to, Scripture.

This isn’t a “sola scriptura” or even a “prima scriptura” dynamic. That seems to be the position from which you’re arguing… or am I mistaken?

You see, Gorgias, try as you might, one can never avoid Sacred Scriptures…

Not true. Scripture is valuable (i.e., “profitable”); it’s inspired; but it’s neither formally sufficient nor efficacious for salvation in and of itself.

 

[po18guy]

The bible is incomplete. It was never intended or used as a sole rule. Without the pre-exisitng Apostolic Tradition (a tiny fraction of which it contains) there would be no bible at all.

Sadly, the European man-made concept of bible alone has substantially damaged Christianty. It is licentious in its very DNA. It gives the license; the freedom to twist the scriptures to suit oneself. Saint Peter saw this in the first century! Does anyone think it has somehow gotten better? AYKM?

 

[EndTimes]

This isn’t a “sola scriptura” or even a “prima scriptura” dynamic. That seems to be the position from which you’re arguing… or am I mistaken?

You’re mistaken… Scriptures is Jesus the WORD in Written Form… That’s all

 

[ralfyman]

To recap, we have the Magisterium, which stems from the first two centuries of the Church, and the Bible, with the NT canon in its present form accepted later.

Thus, Catholics don’t believe that the Bible alone is enough because the Church was formed before its members agreed on what constituted the Christian Bible.

 

[nafatyuk]

I seem to recall Jesus mentioning something that comes from the book of Enoch, which is not held by most to be revealed scripture. I can’t quite remember the reference though.

 

[C.Ray]

The Bible is enough, if it is all you have.

 

[adamhovey1988]

ecause the Bible is the work of man, not God, not to say the Bible doesn’t portray the acts and teachings of God, but the Bible is “tainted” from incorrect translations and multiple translations

That is not a good (or logical) argument.

 

[sudy]

The bible can’t be enough as it doesn’t contain everything… even the bible makes that clear. We’d have no idea how to interpret it, for one thing. The bible came forth from the Church, not the other way around.

 

[ConstantineTheGreat]

If I might ask, “Why?” I’d love to hear your answer.

 

[silentwitness]

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

I am guessing the question is why an acceptance and faithful response to the bible alone is/is not enough for salvation?

What is an acceptance and faithful response?

It comes down to one man’s reading against another man’s with neither able to prove his version is the correct one.