It ain’t Biblical, so how come it’s officially part of what’s taught?
Well, first, some sort of context would be helpful. Where in the Catechism are you referring to? What exactly does it say? The Catechism (at least the one I have) is almost 700 pages not counting indices and what-have-you. I’ve read it, but not memorized it.
Second, the apostles didn’t only write, they also taught, and the Holy Spirit has caused that teaching to be handed down faithfully by the Church.
The idea that “if it isn’t spelled out clearly in Scripture, it isn’t true,” is not a Catholic idea.
True, teachings, cannot contradict Scripture, and usually if not always there is some hint in Scripture.
However, it might be better to ask a question about the bigger issue: “Why does the Church think she can pass down teachings that aren’t laid out in Scripture,” rather than this particular issue.
Ahh, gotta love this statement in how neat and clean-cut it sounds. Some fundamentalist Christian sects use the Bible to argue there is no such thing as a Holy Trinity and that Christ is not God, but an angel. Not as neat as it seems.
I suggest you read the following article to understand why the Church has ever since the apostolic age considered that the divine revelation is through Scripture and Tradition. Catechism means “teaching by word of mouth”. Of this teaching speaks Paul when he says: " stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15). The fact that Paul himself makes reference to things he said and wrote which are not written in the New Testament clearly shows that there was more than the “Bible”.
Of course, you can save yourself the time if you instead reflect on the facts that
(1) for 400 years there was no Bible as we understand it, since the Canon of Sacred Scripture had not been yet sealed by the Magisterium of the Church; in fact, even before we had a Bible as we understand it now, we had the Symbol of the Apostles and more precise Creeds refuting certain errors of the apostolic age. It could be argued that the Apostolic Creed was around even before several books of the New Testament had been written down.
(2) for 1600 years there was no printed press, books had to be written down by hand, and there were not even “languages” as we know them, but mostly dialects incapable of expressing the entirety of Scripture (which was saved by being entirely translated into the most extensive and articulated language of the time, Latin). Even if people would have had access to the few precious hand-written copies of Sacred Scripture treasured in churches and monasteries, they would not have had the education necessary to read the Latin, because of the state of society.
Now - “our deepest desires being fulfilled”. What do you mean? Our deepest desires are fulfilled by God alone, and no vanity of the present life can fulfill our deepest desires. This is why in Baptism we profess vows that include renouncing the devil and all his works, the pomps and vanity of this wicked world and the sinful lusts of the flesh, vows that we renew often (or, at least, ought to renew often) during our lifetime.
It sometimes seems that non Catholics think the bible just fell from the sky right after Jesus’s Reserection and has always been there
First off Catholic follow more than the bible we have the Traditions of the Apostles. The CC is based on the bible and anything in there will almost always have scripture backing it up
Are you referring to CCC 27?
The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for.
Jesus did not found a “biblical” Church.
He founded an Apostolic Church, which much later produced the bible.
But, you want evidence of catechetical teachings from the bible.
OK. Go to Acts 15 and read the letter from the coucil of Jerusalem to the gentiles regarding the discontinuation of the need for circumcision. That is a written doctrinal and catechetical teaching of the early Church that is “in the bible”
The rest follows from that same authority.
What is NOT in the bible?
Founding a Church on the bible and claiming that it is the sole rule for faith.
Next question, please.
It sounds like you believe in Sola Scriptura which of course is false.
You better watch out; I’m considering Catholicism! I might be one of your lot!
That’s grand to hear. I’m sick of the Bible being my only reliable source.
In the same Acts 15, we see that Paul had no answer for the circumcision question. He went to the Church for an answer. Once the Church had spoken, guided by the Holy Spirit, the matter was settled. And, if you look at today’s catechism, this is an extension of what the Church has decided at that first council. Notice that in Acts 15, as with the catechism, matters were restricted to the areas of faith and morals, which is the Church’s very purpose. All other matters are left to prudential judgment, guided by the principle of love. It is so unusually satisfying to have such a Church watching over us - yet allowing us great freedom in so many other areas of life.