Do we get everything from the Bible

I was having a conversation with a person who said that the Church added certain teachings that were not in the Scriptures and created by men within the Church. In reaction I said something on the lines that Theologians used Philosophy to understand the teachings of Christ like St. Thomas Aquinas and that we just don’t simply go by the Bible like Protestants do with Solas Scriptura.

Was I correct in saying this or does the Church base teaching only on the Bible?

I suggest you study what the Catechism has to say regarding Divine Revelation. Divine Revelation is composed of both Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. Both are equally Divine Revelation.

The Church doesn’t “get” its teachings from the Bible, in the way your friend means. Rather, the revelation of Jesus Christ, as given to the Apostles, is partly contained in the Bible. They also taught orally, so many things they said and did are not recorded in the Bible.

The Bible is but one part of Sacred Tradition, which is the revelation of God to his people through the Patriarchs and Prophets which was completed in the revelation of Christ through his Incarnation, Death and Resurrection. To put it briefly, the Bible is a witness to the Church Christ founded, and her teachings, not the sole source of them.

I just don’t particularly like when people say the Bible was “divinely inspired.” Well, that’s quite the understatement. Either GOD wrote it or He didn’t. I believe He did.

Well, do you mean dictated it word for word? I don’t think that’s what you mean. :slight_smile:

Rather, God, speaking to men his revelation used their minds, their faith, and by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit gave us his word.

However, we have to remember that there is only one Word of God, and that’s Christ himself–God’s final Word to mankind. What he taught to the Apostles and inspired them and others to write constitutes Sacred Scripture, but it’s not all God revealed and it’s not all they taught.

No book is an authority in and of itself. It needs an interpreter. This is why Jesus never commanded that any books be written but rather commissioned his Apostles to teach, preach and baptize to make disciples. The NT is a witness to that commission not an end in itself.

The Church, through a long and involved process compiled the books of the Bible, and even that effort was so all dioceses and all the parishes would be reading the same biblical texts for the liturgy of the Mass and the daily prayer of the Church. Studying it is great (I read and meditate on a portion every day), but it’s not meant to be the final word on matters of faith and morals. Jesus founded his Church, made up of men, to do that, which the Church has been doing since the very beginning. The proof is right in the NT in Acts 15 when the Church met to do that very thing.

I don’t think that is what Even means. It would be silly. For a quick laugh, imagine that the Holy Spirit dictated these words to Paul:

I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) [1Cor 1:14-16]

I was having a conversation with a person who said that the Church added certain teachings that were not in the Scriptures and created by men within the Church.

Did they say what teachings the Church added that were not in Scripture? It helps to find out the basis of someone’s statement so that you can discern the best response. If someone made that statement to me, I would ask what teachings and who created them. If they are simply repeating what they have been told, it is probably best to say that you would be interested if they came back with examples. If they do, then you have the possibility of a reasoned discussion, if not, then they are just parroting off something they heard and are not interested in listening or genuinely cannot engage in reason discussion.

Purgatory is an example of what he meant and any Church Teaching not specifically implied in the the Bible but a conclusion that would follow something within it. I think the person I was talking to was saying that the Church tried to make sense though explanation like I said before what Aquinas did while fundamentalists just kept to the literal word of the Bible at least that was the impression he gave off.

There is no teaching of the Catholic Church that is not explicitly or implicitly in the bible.

The problem is that most Protestants don’t understand that Traditions were being taught before the new testament was assembled and written. Especially the most hated (among Protestants) traditions about the Blessed Mother and the papacy.

*]Get the Catholic Answers app.
*]Use the filter to find “forum for Non-Catholics”
*]Listen to shows by Tim Staples, Steve Ray, and Jimmy Akin and branch out from there.

And read:
*]“Behold Your Mother” by Tim Staples
*]“Upon This Rock” By Steve Ray

Problem solved!

Hated is such a strong word. How bout disagreeable?

Oh but there are Fundamentalists who do believe it. I’ve met a few in my time. :slight_smile: Even So most likely isn’t such a believer, but one never knows unless one asks. :wink:

Did you quote 1Cor1:14-16 to refute that Jesus commissioned the Apostles to baptize disciples? If so, Paul choosing not to except in a few cases (probably because he was a roving evangelist and not a permanent bishop of any one diocese) doesn’t refute Jesus’ commission as recorded in Mt. 28:19. Please clarify. :slight_smile:

Theologians seek to better understand and clarify Gods revelation. It’s up to the Church to determine if their ideas are correct or not. If useful, she may accept them as part of her teachings. Never do those ideas constitute new revelation. In addition to this, the Church, having been established by Christ and so existing since the beginning of our faith, received from Him the fullness of the gospel, not all of which was necessarily recorded in Scripture, as Scripture, itself, indicates:
“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” **John 21:25
“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” ** 2 Thess 2:15

Those things which the Church has held fast to, not passed on by letter, are known as Tradition. Either way, no new revelation is considered admissible:

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

The best place to understand the Church’s teachings on these matters is from the Catechism here:
And here:

That is going to be difficult because one for the problems with taking the Bible literally is that it does not take account of parables, songs and poetry and most importantly, the context and change in language. But back to your friends, the question is whether they think Purgatory is a place in the same way that Heaven and Hell are, or whether they understand that it is a process of purification. The Catechism of the Catholic Church will help. I can’t give much more on Purgatory as I am just starting research the subject. :smiley:

Yes, many Protestants go only to the bible-and then often proceed to disagree with each other on its meaning.

No it doesn’t.

The Scriptures are to be used for the corrections of wrong doctrine and views.
Humans make mistakes and try to interpret faith rather than trust and obey.

2 Timothy 3:15
and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Hey mark. I think so to and in order the issue you propose stems from one point, the Nature of Christ thus the hypostatic union-Incarnation in which Christ first is the par excellence of this in relation to Divine and human thus full of grace, Mary though completely human is closest to the hypostatic union in maternity as her ascent or yes is the secondary cause of the Incarnation thus hypostatic union of the divine/human nature of Christ.

So in perspective your conviction of the Lord is a hypostatic union of yourself and the Lord thus God becomes man so you can become “like God”, in which case you or Mary in a like manner share in the hypostatic union. However, yours is realized by divine revelation thus conviction by the Holy Spirit, this is true also with Mary, nevertheless the difference is Marys is realized by participation in maternity.

This also happens in like manner in the sacrament of the Church, real presence, however with Mary this happened in reality as the Mother of the Lord-Jesus Christ.

The issues in comprehension stem from this point which bible only proposes at this point any theories such as Pauls sin theology which doesn’t apply to God, thats His law for man, not for himself to be applied to it or subjected to it. Mans issue is sin not God who is full of grace. Christ came to redeem man of the paradigm of ignorance by man which is sin thus a fracture of the paradigm of “full of grace” or perfectly graced thus a state of sanctifying grace. Mary was sanctified thus full of grace as the author of Grace was born of Mary thus the Incarnation of the Word. Its a secondary response of the convicted soul which ultimately leads the soul to divinization in a like manner which is represented in Jesus Christ. So the trinity is also further comprehended by this understanding so in a like manner both Trinity and Incarnation are revealed to the Church which is Christ, and why Mary is Mother of the Church.

Needless to say I agree and a good deal with the posts above.

Yeah, but those types of people don’t tend to hang out here. I mean, we could talk about how the whole “dictation” idea is even MORE non-Biblical than Sola Scriptura (because it claims a *larger *truth, which is even *less *substantiated within Scripture).

Did you quote 1Cor1:14-16 to refute that Jesus commissioned the Apostles to baptize disciples?.. Please clarify. :slight_smile:

Of course not, I cited it because Paul says that he couldn’t remember whether or not he did something (Baptize other individuals). Of course, the Holy Spirit knows EXACTLY who Paul Baptized (the Spirit was there, and the Spirit does not suffer from memory lapses). So, clearly, when Paul wrote at least those words, they were purely his own words, and not words that the Holy Spirit dictated to Paul.

If someone wants to claim that the authors of Scripture had absolutely nothing to do with the exact wording (the dictation idea), then all someone has to do to disprove this idea is come up with just one passage in which this idea is proved to be absurd.

Otherwise, we are left with no response to the accusation: Do you mean to tell me that the Holy Spirit cannot even remember who Paul Baptized?

We’ve all given Even the benefit of the doubt, without asking him if he actually believes in the dictation idea. I think this is the charitable position. Even is free to present and defend the dictation idea if this is actually what s/he believes.

Ask this person how he knows which books belong in the Bible. After he’s finished telling you, point out that he has “added certain teachings that were not in the Scriptures” because scripture nowhere says which books belong in the Bible.

You are overthinking this, you know. I never accused anyone of anything. Please just stick to the topic. Thank you. :tiphat:

Or Galatians 6:11

‘Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.’

As I understand it many or most Epistles were physically written by scribes who received dictation from the author. In this case a scribe wrote most of the Epistle but Paul decided to write the closing lines himself and wrote very large letters.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit