100% Biblical Proof FOR Catholic Authority vs. Sola Scriptura [12+ Verses to highlight] 

Nehemiah 8:5-8. Ezra and the scribes taught the people and gave them the sense of the Law! Mosiac Law which we "think" is clear, STILL needs to be explained by those in authority. What a concept!

One thing he cannot deny: Christians do not necessarily need a bible. The bible itself proves this. ZERO Christians IN the bible HAD a bible. Believers HEARD the Word. Luke 10:16. So far, no coherent explanations of bible alone. Christians need the Gospel. How did Christ send the Gospel forth?

You are so welcome

I'm so glad!

oh awesome. I'm loving it.

You bet!

Like a coffee break with Christ!

Glad you enjoy it!

Great question. The mistake is to think of scripture and tradition in this way: Over here on the left, we have a written set of books called Sacred Scripture. These are inspired. Over here on the right, we have another set of writings consisting of lists of things called Sacred Tradition. The impulse is to look for "written things" as proof of Sacred Tradition. This is not to say that these things were not written down in various ways by various people (many were), but there is not a "book of sacred traditions." Rather, Sacred Tradition is seen in two primary ways: 1. The Church's conclusions about the meaning of Sacred Scripture (especially when there have been disputes). So - the BELIEF, for instance that God is a Trinity is a way of interpreting Scripture. It is (as it is called in Titus) "the trustworthy word as taught (1:9). In other words, it is a particular way of understanding things. Other things fit in to this "primary way" such as Mary's perpetual virginity (a way of interpreting the collective data in the Bible and what the Church has always said), the Canonicity of particular texts (Such as the Deutero Canonical Books and the 27 books of the New Testament). There is no writing IN the Bible that says what books go in the Bible. We need Sacred Tradition to sort those things out. 2. The Church's worship and practice. For instance, the way in which the Mass is celbrated and develops can be found explicated in great detail, for instance, in the writings of St. Justin Martyr. There is nothing in the Bible about the step-by-step process for celebrating Christian worship as he explains it and works through it. This is a way of saying, "This is how it was taught to us, so this is how we carry out our public worship." Until Justin writes it down, we don't have a written record. We only have a "lived record" if you will. To summarized (using both ways) Sacred Tradition is seen in how the Church eventually makes conclusions about the meaning of Christian Truth (such as dogmas and doctrines that eventually become defined), and how the Church lives her life (especially and centrall in ecclesial life in worship. etc.). There are WITNESSES to Sacred Tradition in the writings of the Early Fathers, which is why, for instance, John Henry Newman concluded that a rigorous study of early Church writings would lead anyone to conclude that these people lived, worshippped, and believed as Catholics. They say so when they describe their theology and practice beyond what is written down in the Bible.

@@KennyBurchardThank you for the very thoughtful and thorough answer! This makes a ton of sense to me. Much appreciated as always- Excited for the next episode!

The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains the doctrinal deposit of faith. It distills the Tradition of the Apostles as well as doctrinal decisions and developments ever since. The Church collects it, preserves it and promotes it using the Magisterial power granted by Christ. Even the bible is part of the Magisterium, as it could only be written, collected, vetted and published by that inspiration and Magisterial authority.

fight the good fight!

I began to notice that it is actually "ego alone' and the bible used as support. Of course there is division!

Even BEFORE Peter's confession about Christ! It seems that Peter was pre-destined.

More to come!

Started watching and looks like you switched to Ave?

The AVE is now (as of this week) my official “featured” version in this and all future episodes.

By Popular DEMAND! HAHA!

Thomas! Awesome. Thanks so much for this gift. This will go right back into the channel. I sure appreciate it.

In 2 Peter 1 when he mentions the "holy men" he meant the Apostles and of course, that authority as handed on to the Church and preserved by the Church. Much of what Jesus spoke was solely directed at the Apostles. Context is key to understanding. Do you consult the (online) Rev. George Leo Haydock Bible Commentary? It is a great help in coming to a fuller understanding of the faith and the scriptures. Here is what the commentary states on 2 Peter 1:20 "Ver. 20. No prophecy of the scripture is made by private interpretation; or, as the Protestants translate it from the Greek, is of any private interpretation, i.e. is not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit. (Witham) - The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church."

By implication though, if the men who received the revelations did not deduce them from their own interpretation, the revealed book itself must also not be something humans can deduce for themselves privately without authority or tradition. In fact, humans in their own natural capacity cannot even know which scriptures are scripture and which ones or not unless God also reveal that to them, and that's how the canon was formed, by the handing down of Apostolic tradition, which includes which books are divine scripture. You're right that it doesn't necessarily directly say that but I think logically it can be inferred. I agree though that 2 Peter 3:16 is a better proof text though.

Why would you say this?

It's funny to watch non-Catholics add words the Bible that are not there, and take words away that are. Example re: your comment: "Built upon the foundation of the words Jesus gave the apostles to preach that were put into the new testament." You are literally making up your own words and putting them in the Bible. It's funny to watch non-Catholics do this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

That's not what the bible says though. Yes God is the primary author of the scriptures, but he is also the primary author of the Church and sacred Tradition. The word of God is not only written but it is also spoken orally. See 1 Thess 2:13 and 1 Peter 1:22-25

@@KennyBurchard Some say that Protestantism is founded on the human ego, but "I" don't believe them. 🙄

@@KennyBurchard why didn’t you tell us about 1Corinthians 3:11 where Jesus is foundation. You have to do precept on precept. How could flawed men be any foundation. We would all be in trouble, but they probably are to the Roman Catholic Church, I agree. It is a spirit of deception on people to check their brains at the door and leave common sense behind. So many smart people have been deceived lil why would we need anything more than the written word for salvation and proper living