Why does any Catholic teaching have to be in the bible?


#1

Since the Catholic faith did not come from the bible, but directly from Jesus, who taught EVERYTHING to His apostles, and they handed down the entire Catholic faith in Tradition, then is it necessary for any Catholic teaching to be in the bible? After all, the bible does not claim to present the Gospel the apostles taught and preached, but it only claims to present salvation history.


#2

Wrong, the Catholic Faith came from BOTH the Bible and Tradition. From the Catechism:

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, **“does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”**44

Not everything - the CCC again:

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

Also note that the Teaching the Apostles did, at that time, was mostly written down in the form of the New Testament, under the direction (inspiration) of the Holy Spirit. Not EVERYTHING is contained in Scripture - but neither is everything contained in Tradition.

,

False, see above

The Bible IS the Gospel the Apostles taught and Preached - just not in it’s entirety.

Which was/is the main point.

If you want to check in the CCC you can find it HERE it contains all relevant Scripture references, as well as the results of all the Councils, and writings of the Church fathers.

Peace

John


#3

Catholic dogma does not have to come from the Bible. It can not contradict the Bible. but does not need to be explicated by the Bible…


#4

Someone replied

Wrong, the Catholic Faith came from BOTH the Bible and Tradition. From the Catechism:
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, **“does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”**44

 How does this mean that the Catholic faith came from the bible?  The last sentence only speaks of how the Church derives her certainty about what has been revealed, not about what has been revealed itself.

While it is true the scripture is the word of God, no where does the Church claim to have learned her doctrines from scripture. And while some doctrines are handed down in scripture, the Church knew these doctrines through Tradition before they were handed down.

The Church teaches that all she believes is handed down in Tradition. The Catechism states:
78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."
Lets use the bible here to help understand this.
The bible says, :
Jesus taught the whole Gospel only to His apostles.
Mk 4:34 “He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.”
[FONT=Bitstream Vera Sans Mono, sans-serif][size=2]Mt 13:11[/size] "to you it has been given to know the secrets of the Kingdom of heaven”.[/FONT]
**John 15:15 **“for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”
[FONT=Bitstream Vera Sans Mono, sans-serif]John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”[/FONT]

Thus Jesus taught the entire Gospel, the full Gospel, EVERYTHING to His apostles. And He sent the Holy Spirit to teach them “all things” again, so they could remember.
Since the apostles now knew “everything” regarding salvation, HOW COULD THEY LEARN ANY NEW DOCTRINE FROM SCRIPTURE?
Obviously they could not. If they had learned any new doctrine from scripture, then Jesus lied when He said He told them “everything” and “all things”.
And the Catechism lied when it said through Tradition “everything she believes” is handed down.

Of course neither Jesus nor the Church can lie about teachings.
Thus, since “all she believes” is handed down “to every generation” through Tradition and NOT through scripture, then
**Why does any Catholic teaching HAVE to be in the bible?

**My conclusion is that it does not. That is, while I will not deny that Gospel truths, which the Church knew ahead of time, are also handed down in Scripture, as the Church teaches. I don’t think the Church teaches that any specific doctrine has to be in scripture. That is, I see no reason why all doctrines, or any specific doctrine MUST be in scripture, Since the Church already knew all doctrines and all these doctrines were handed down in Tradition to each generation.

I think the crazy idea that all doctrines, most doctrines or that any doctrine MUST be in scripture came exclusively from Protestantism, and not from God.


#5

The obvious conclusion from your position, then, would be that we simply don’t need the scriptures, methinks.

If we don’t have a record of what happened, oral traditions can get muddied over the years. I understand your point, and agree to some extent, but Scripture is revelation given in a different manner than Tradition. I think what you’re saying is based on a slightly different definition of Tradition. Good argument, though. :thumbsup:


#6

There is some debate among theologians as to whether or not the truths found in Tradition are all also found in Scripture, and vice versa.

My understanding is that any truth in Tradition is also at least implicit in Scripture, and vice versa. The Magisterium teaches only from Tradition and Scripture. So, in principle, any teaching of the Church is at least implicit in Scripture.

Sacred infallible Tradition is not an oral tradition. It is the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation, especially the deeds and example of Christ’s life. These truths expressed in deeds are transmitted partly by spoken word and written word, but the spoken and written words (other than Scripture) are not themselves infallible. Tradition is also transmitted by the worship and spiritual life of the Church, and by the examples of even the most lowly unknown Christians. Tradition includes the example of Christ’s life. Tradition includes the act itself of Christ dying for our salvation, so that salvation itself is a part of Tradition itself.


#7

I don’t know if this is true. I don’t think the teachings of the Church need to be explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. Teachings of the Church cannot contradict Scripture, that is a certainty. I don’t believe the Assumption of Mary could be found even implicitly in Scripture. I suppose one could make a contention that as her Immaculate Conception would be implicit in Scripture the end result of the IC is the Assumption - but I don’t know how valid such an argument would be. Then again I am not sure if I am correct either.


#8

I’m not going to use the ‘quote’ feature, it would make the post too long - so please bear with me.

John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,** he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you**

This contradicts your understanding of this: “for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”

How could Jesus have taught them everything there is to know, if the Holy Spirit has more to teach?

What Jesus said is: “for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”

This partial quote from the CCC # 78 states

Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."

The Church here transmits the knowledge she received in its entirety - from Scripture through the Holy Spirit and the Traditions passed on to them through Christ.

You must understand - not everyone received the same Scriptures - although they did receive the same Gospel. As Paul stated in every one of his letters (epistles) “If anyone man or angel gives you a Gospel different than that which I have taught you - let him be condemned” (Paraphrased).

Those Epistles were sent to the various “Parishes?” I.E. the Corinthians, the Romans, the Galatians etc. and were specific to that Parishes problems. It was only later that the whole of Scripture was put together.

Some made it around, sooner or later - but you must understand - that is how Scripture came to be. Which is why, Scripture and Tradition is so important - not everything made it into Scripture - which is why Protestants have so much trouble - the Scriptures alone are not sufficient - neither is Tradition alone sufficient.

Same Gospel, but not the same Scriptural instruction - which is where Tradition comes in. Tradition is subject to Scripture, and influenced by the understanding of Scripture (expanded understanding), and the understanding of Scripture is expanded through Tradition.

Did I explain that enough that you get what I mean? Not that you necessarily agree with it - but just that you understand it. Sometimes I don’t transmit very well what I mean.

Also if I seemed curt or arrogant - that was not my intention and I apologize. It’s just that so many people come on these forums and seem to be looking for understanding - but really only want to trash the Faith.

Peace

John


#9

Jesus did not say the Holy Spirit would teach them more, but that He would teach them all things.
You may ask, why would the Holy Spirit have to teach them all things, if Jesus taught them everything?
Easy. They could not remember everything. But, the second time the Holy Spirit taught them, He also gave them the grace to remember all things. Remember Jesus said, "[FONT=Bitstream Vera Sans Mono, sans-serif]and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”[/FONT]

Thus the Holy Spirit was not teaching anything new, but was repeating what Jesus said.

Also, as the Church teaches, after Jesus suffered, died and rose, then the apostles understood more clearly what Jesus taught the first time, in light of reflecting on His suffering, death and resurrection. So when the Holy Spirit taught them again, they understood better what Jesus had told them the first time.

And I must point out, that while Jesus and the Holy Spirit taught the apostles everything, everything has not yet been made explicit. So, as time goes on, there is a deeper penetration into what was taught the first time. And since this deeper penetration of the Word of God is done with the Holy Spirit, then this deeper penetration is also the Word of God.

Now, some people, esp. Protestants think that this truth that I am pointing out devalues scripture. They think, that since the Church already knew all the teachings of salvation, and thus has not learned any new doctrines when the New Testament was written, that the New Testament becomes almost worthless.
This is false. This idea arises from the fact that for centuries the Protestants were taught that the bible was the source of all doctrines. They studied and searched to learn the truth, but of course, they could never agree. They thought the sole value of scripture was the doctrines they could learn from it. This is false.
Scripture is not valuable because of the doctrines it contains, but because it is the written word of God. Some may think, that although it is the written word of God, since we can learn nothing new from it, since the Church already knows all saving truth, then scripture is of little value. Again this is false.
First scripture is important because it presents salvation history in detail. Tradition cannot do this.
Second scripture is important because it helps us understand the teachings handed down in Tradition. For example, in this post I am transmitting the Church teaching that Jesus taught the apostles EVERYTHING, thus they didn’t learn any new doctrine from scripture.
BUT, I used scripture to make this teaching clear. If I only stated the teaching, but I did not quote scripture, then the teaching would be hard to understand, hard to accept, hard to place a concrete place in history for this teaching.
Thus I used scripture to illuminate the teaching. This is how scripture is supposed to be used. In other words, when teaching the truths Jesus handed down, we are supposed to quote scripture to help people understand the truths. We don’t quote scripture to prove doctrine. We don’t quote scripture to make people think it is the original source of doctrine. We, or the Church, quotes scripture to help us understand and remember doctrines.
Before Vatican II, often teachers would simple give theology or Chuch teachings without scripture. That becomes dry, boring, and hard to understand. The Church has alway taught that the teacher must quote scripture, when available, to help others understand doctrine. That is why Vatican II wanted more scripture.
Notice how the Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes scripture as a witness to the teachings she already knows, so as to help us remember and understand the teachings.

Third, scripture is necessary to learn fully about Jesus. Of course we learn about Him from His teachings that He handed down in Tradition. BUT, since Jesus is God and is perfect, then we also can learn about Him from His actions, from how He related to people and to His father.
Thus the Church teaches, “not to know scripture, is not to know Christ.” This is why the written Gospels are central to scripture and to the liturgy. Because we are all called to seek, know and love God. The greatest commandment is to love God, But, we cannot love who we do not know. And scripture is central to knowing God.


#10

You missed the word and in there.

and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

If you are correct, then why would Jesus say that The Holy Spirit would teach them all things **and bring to remembrance all ** that I have taught you?

You’re basically saying that the “All things” referred to belongs in the second half of the statement, rather than a part of an independent statement in itself. If that were the case - why would Jesus tell them both statements, and use the word ‘teach’? “The Holy Spirit will teach you all things, AND…” instead of (you’re statement) “The Holy spirit will teach you again what I taught you, and bring to remembrance all that I have taught you”??

Too, what about this statement:

“When he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth” (John 16:13)

(emphasis mine)

Same thing here - Jesus taught them on the road to Ephesus what the whole Truth was about Him, using the O.T. What need then, would there be for the Holy Spirit to do it all over again a couple weeks later? (not sure about the timetable here) It would be redundant. The Holy Spirit transmitted more to them - teaching them everything while bringing to remembrance everything Jesus taught them, putting it all together.

I agree with you, with what was here.

Well, yes it can. Remember the double duty of Scripture and Tradition - each one leans on the other for enlightenment and ‘checks and balances’. Scripture is Tradition written down, “shorthand”, so to speak - directed at a specific audience at the Time - yet pertains to us all. All to the wonderment and Glory of God.

Again, I disagree - The Apostles couldn’t have learned anything new from Scripture concerning the Gospel and the the tenets of the Faith, true, to a point - since they were the ones writing it down. However - they were learning doctrine through the Holy Spirit over the time they were writing the Scriptures as well as through the Oral transmission of those same Scriptures. Like ‘On the job training’ so to speak. Maybe this, in part, is a matter of Semantics?

I think what you’re saying through all this is - that no new doctrine can come through Scripture other than what is contained in Tradition, Scripture is only useful to double-check Tradition, and as a memory tool, as well as being hard evidence for our Traditions in order to combat heresies?

Remember that Oral Tradition is Scripture written down, but we must constantly interpret Oral Transmission through Scripture and vice-versa. Neither one can stand alone.

Remember too please. I’m not always very good at transmission. Especially when it comes to complicated issues I never had to put into words before (why my posts are sometimes so long), so if you would like to read a little bit about this - here is a good article on it. Especially down at “Who is the “absolutizer”?”

Here is a good article also.

Peace

John


#11

Why would Jesus have to say, “will teach you again what I taught you”?
You ignored the first part. Even though Jesus taught the apostles everything regarding salvation, how could they remember it all? Jesus spent 3 years teaching them, He taught them “everything.” It would normally be impossible to remember “everything” that God taught. That was why He said the Holy Spirit would bring to mind all that He taught.
Why would the Holy Spirit have to teach all things again?
Probably because when the Holy Spirit taught them, He gave them a deeper understanding of what had been taught. As I mentioned before, while all saving truth has been handed down to the Church from the apostles, not all this truth has been made explicit. The Holy Spirit is still working today in guiding the Church to give a deeper penetration of what has been handed down in Tradition.

Same thing here - Jesus taught them on the road to Ephesus what the whole Truth was about Him, using the O.T. What need then, would there be for the Holy Spirit to do it all over again a couple weeks later? (not sure about the timetable here) It would be redundant. The Holy Spirit transmitted more to them - teaching them everything while bringing to remembrance everything Jesus taught them, putting it all together.

  Again, the apostles can remember what Jesus taught, but the Holy Spirit can give the same teaching with a deeper penetration into what Jesus taught. The Church teaches that the Holy Spirit is still guiding the Church today.  In other words, while there is no new revelation, the Church teaches that all this revelation has not been made explicit.   The Holy Spirit guides the Church into a deeper penetration into what has already been revealed. . 

Tradition cannot present salvation history in detail. There is no way. We forget that Jesus came to proclaim the Gospel. Jesus did NOT come to put all the bible down in Tradition. Thus, the Tradition the apostles learned from Jesus was not perfect understanding of all scriptural events, but “the Gospel”, the good news of salvation. Jesus did not teach the apostles all the events in scripture, but all “saving truth.” And the Church teaches the Gospel handed down in Tradition also contains all that God wanted us to know about Himself.
So when Jesus taught the apostles “everything” and sent the Holy Spirit to teach them “all things”, we must remember the context, which is that Jesus came to proclaim the Gospel, thus "everything and “all things” are in reference to the Gospel, the good news of salvation. Thus the Church teaches that the Gospel the apostles handed down as the Catholic Faith contains all “saving truth and moral discipline.” The Church does not have all knowledge of the meaning of all the events in that are mentioned in scripture. The understanding of these will come over time, with the help of the Holy Spirit. But they will not present any new doctrine.
That is why in regards to doctrine, the Church is firm and says one cannot interpret scripture contrary to any doctrine since “all saving truth” that has been handed down in Tradition. But, other events in the bible that don’t concern doctrine were not necessarily taught by Jesus to the apostles, and the understanding of those will come over time.

Well, yes it can. Remember the double duty of Scripture and Tradition - each one leans on the other for enlightenment and ‘checks and balances’. Scripture is Tradition written down, “shorthand”, so to speak - directed at a specific audience at the Time - yet pertains to us all. All to the wonderment and Glory of God.

Scripture is not simply Tradition written down.
Scripture contains “certain elements” of Tradition, as the Catechism teaches. Thus scripture does NOT contain all elements of Tradition. For example, the Gospel that the apostles taught and preached is found no where in scripture.
The four Gospels only claim to be a narrative of the life of Jesus. (General Directory for Catechesis), they do not claim to present the Gospel that the apostles taught and preached.
But, in presenting this narrative, they do give us some of the teachings of Jesus.

There is not a single book, a single chapter of the bible, that claims to present the Gospel that the apostles taught and preached. And remember, this Gospel was so extensive that Jesus had to send the Holy Spirit to bring to mind all that Jesus taught them. “Everything” and “all things” cannot be reduced to a few verses. Yet, Jesus and St. Paul say that salvation comes from believing this Gospel. Yet It is NOT written in the bible. This Gospel they taught is the Catholic faith and that includes everything, how to worship, how to administer the sacraments, etc, not just doctrines. The Catechisms present this living Tradition the apostles handed down. Thus, to learn the Gospel the apostles handed down, one must learn the Catholic faith.

Again, I disagree - The Apostles couldn’t have learned anything new from Scripture concerning the Gospel and the the tenets of the Faith, true, to a point - since they were the ones writing it down.

No. Jesus never said the Holy Spirit would write doctrine, but would “teach them all things”. Thus, they would NOT first learn doctrine by reading what had been written, but by being taught, (Tradition). And this would not be new teaching, since Jesus already taught them “everything”.

Scripture is only useful to double-check Tradition,

No. Scripture must be interpreted according to Tradition. Scripture is never used to double-check Tradition in regards to doctrine. Because scripture is never explicit and is not perfectly clear in regards to doctrine, whereas Tradition contains “all saving truth” and all the Church believes.
The reason that there is not a single doctrine that all Protestant denominations can agree upon is precisely because scripture is NOT clear in regards to doctrine. It is clear in regards to salvation history.

Remember that Oral Tradition is Scripture written down, but we must constantly interpret Oral Transmission through Scripture and vice-versa.

What does “Oral Tradition is NOT scripture written down” mean? Do you mean Scripture is Oral Tradition written down? Even that is false.
For example,
Scripture NO WHERE claims to present the Gospel that apostles handed down in Oral Tradition. Scripture only claims to present “certain elements” of Tradition. And even these are so unclear that Protestant denominations can’t agree on a single teaching.

Remember too please. I’m not always very good at transmission. Especially when it comes to complicated issues I never had to put into words before (why my posts are sometimes so long), so if you would like to read a little bit about this - here is a good article on it. Especially down at "Who is the “absolutizer”?"
Here is a good article also.

One article says Catholics may assert the material sufficiency of scripture. Which means “that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation.” The Church has never taught this. Thus, we may not assert this.


#12

Lets start here - From the CCC:

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety** the Word of God** which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").

As for this

Why would Jesus have to say, “will teach you again what I taught you”?
You ignored the first part.

As I said before - you missed the word “AND”

John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you

Jesus did NOT come to put all the bible down in Tradition.

Correct - Jesus and the Holy Spirit did that. Separately and together.

What does “Oral Tradition is NOT scripture written down” mean? Do you mean Scripture is Oral Tradition written down? Even that is false.

What I said was:

Remember that Oral Tradition** is** Scripture written down, but we must constantly interpret Oral Transmission through Scripture and vice-versa. Neither one can stand alone.

And - according to the CCC above, that is exactly what Tradition is.

One article says Catholics may assert the material sufficiency of scripture. Which means “that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation.” The Church has never taught this. Thus, we may not assert this.

From the CCC:

[quote]124 "The Word of God, which is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, is set forth and displays its power in a most wonderful way in the writings of the New Testament"96 which hand on the ultimate truth of God’s Revelation.

Their central object is Jesus Christ, God’s incarnate Son: his acts, teachings, Passion and glorification, and his Church’s beginnings under the Spirit’s guidance.97
*
125 The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures “because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior”*.98

126 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:

  1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, "whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up."99
    [/quote]

So, we’ll start here and see where we go now.

Peace

John


#13
                          Remember that Oral Tradition** is** Scripture written down, but we must constantly interpret Oral Transmission through Scripture and vice-versa. Neither one can stand alone.

No where does the Church teach that Oral Tradition is Scripture written down. That is a contradiction. If it is written down, then it is not Oral Tradition. It is scripture. The catechism says they are distinct. What God taught is Tradition. What God wrote is scripture. Distinct. Two different things, both the word of God. Now, the written Gospels contain SOME elements of the Gospel handed down in Tradition. That is only expected as the Gospels are narratives of the life of Jesus. The Catechism in 126 says: 3. The written Gospels. "The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form;
Thus, only part of the Gospel was written in the four Gospels.
Jesus taught the entire Gospel to the apostles. Since Jesus did not write scripture, then He transmitted the entire Gospel to the apostles through TRADITION.
That is since Jesus taught the apostles “everything” (john 15:15) and sent the Holy Spirit to teach them “all things”, then the apostles knew the entire Gospel. This entire Gospel is handed down to their successors the same why Jesus did, through teaching and preaching, and NOT by writing scripture. Jesus commanded His apostles to teach and preach the Gospel. No where did Jesus command them to write the Gospel. **And no where in the bible does it claim to present a written version of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached.
** Thus, since the entire Gospel is ONLY handed down in Tradition, and scripture only contains parts of this Gospel, then the Church says in the Catechism #78
Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."
Thus since ****all that she believes ****is handed down through Tradition there is no reason why all Church teachings have to be in scripture. There is no reason why any specific doctrine must be in scripture. The Church has NEVER taught that all doctrine must be in scripture. That idea is a Protestant teaching. NOT a Catholic teaching.

The Church has NEVER taught the material sufficiency of scripture, which means “that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation.”

And the Church never will teach it, because basic elements are missing, such as the entire Gospel the apostles taught and preached, the canon of scripture, the fact that the Holy Spirit is the person of the Trinity who changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus.

You quoted the English translation of the Catechism:
125 "The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures* “because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior”.9*

That seems to contradict what I have be teaching, that the entire Gospel is handed down complete ONLY in Tradition and that the Gospels only contain “certain of the many elements that had been handed on”.
Thus, number 125 not only contradicts me, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and contradicts the Catechism where it says the apostles learned directly from Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Well it turns out that #126 is supposed to be a quote from Vatican II, in Dei Verbum. But, if you look up the original source in Dei Verbum, it does not match. Dei Verbum says
125 "The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures* “because they are our principal witness for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior”.

*Notice the correct word **“witness” **that Vatican II uses, vs, the incorrect translation "source" in the Catechism.
Notice how the Catechism translators got it wrong. How did this happen. Well for some reason, which I don’t know, whenever the Catechism quotes Vatican II, it does not translate the latin version of the Catechism into english. It instead uses excerpts from “Vatican Council II:…” by Austin Flannery, OP. Austin Flannery was known to be a horrible translator, as this translation shows.
The latin “praecipuum testimonium” means principle testimony or principle witness, not “principle source”.

I complained about this before, but people don’t seem to care, even though it contradicts every the Church has ever taught about the source of the Gospel.

Again my point is that the idea that all Catholic doctrine or that specific doctrines must be in scripture is a Protestant teaching, found no where in Catholic Church teachings and it directly contradicts the Church teaching that all she believes is handed down in Tradition and not scripture.


#14

Ok - so now you are telling me that the CCC is wrong in parts and I shouldn’t listen to it?

oy vey:banghead:

The Church has NEVER taught that all doctrine must be in scripture. That idea is a Protestant teaching. NOT a Catholic teaching.

Just so you know - I am Catholic - I do NOT believe in Sola Scriptura. I’m not even sure I believed it as a Protestant…but I was trying hard :rolleyes:

Ok - so then what you are saying is that Tradition contains everything, and Scripture (for lack of better wording) contains parts of those same Truths, as well as concepts which are richer an more in depth than Tradition alone can illuminate?

Is that what you are saying?


#15

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