If you want a guarantee that something is true, it has to be in the Bible. If you don't care about that, it doesn't have to be in the Bible.
Your comment is so hypocritical. The Catholics try to "prove" what they believe based on scripture, but when asked to defend with scripture they go back to
1) We wrote scripture, we know how to interpret it
2) We have authority to speak God's word, the truth doesn't have to be in scripture.
This is the whole point of my thread, to establish the source of highest authority of truth that we now have on earth. If that can't be established, there is no hope in consensus on interpretation of God's word.
Please note, the SS people don't have to prove they are the only source of truth. It is you that think there is another source of incontrovertible truth that must prove it so. I have asked for this and not gotten it, because it does not exist.
The RCC didn't write the Bible. It was written hundreds of years before and was circulated. It was the truth of scripture the instant it was spoken/written.
You don't understand the meaning of this verse. Does the RCC claim to know all the truths of God? Not, even they are not so arrogant as to claim such. So the truths that we need on earth are the ones sufficient for salvation. Do you claim that the Bible is insufficient for this. You would then have to assert that all the churches that follow SS are also insufficient for salvation.
I fail to see how my comment is hypocritical. I asked you to show me in the Bible where it says it needs to be in the Bible, you failed to do so. If you could back up your concept of Sola Scriptura, then by all means. Sola Scriptura says "Scripture Alone", but how can you come to that conclusion if it does not state that in the Bible itself?
The mass is in the Bible, everything we Catholics believe is in the Bible. Would you go up to J R R Tolkien and say "hey, I read your books! I can totally understand what you are trying to say in this part.", and if he answered you are wrong go "No, you don't know your own book. I told you that you mean this."
Also, "all the churches that follow Sola Scriptura" all happen to disagree on major things in the Bible. Hence there being close to 40k different denominations of Christianity.
Case in point, there are denominations that believe Baptism is symbolic, while others view it as a sacrament. Some do not believe in the Trinity, while others do. Some believe Jesus had biological siblings, whiles others believe that He did not.
By stating Sola Scriptura, you cannot tell me that I "do not understand that verse" because you have rejected all authority in terms of understanding scripture and place authority on the individual.
I never said the Catholic Church
WROTE the Bible, I said that it
PUT THE BIBLE TOGETHER. Those are 2 very different statements.
History Lesson: The NT of the Holy Bible was beginning to be wrote around 30 years after Christs death, however there was no telling the difference between divinely inspired books and false books. Did you know there was a Gospel of James? How about the Gospel of Peter? Acts of Pilot? Gospel of Barnabas?
There were roughly 25 different gospels going around all claiming to be divinely inspired. How was anyone to know which were and which were not?
It wasn't until the 4th century that the Catholic Church got together in councils and started to piece together which books were divinely inspired. This started in the year 325 at the Council of Nicaea, and later the Bible was out as 1 book, and the Church declared that these were the divinely inspired books.
The Highest point of Authority on earth about God is His Church, the 1 Church that he started. The Catholic Church. Jesus did not come down and give us a Bible, He gave us a Church. And that Church is His Bride and faithfully follows the teachings of her Husband.
Actually yes they do need to prove it. The burden of proof lays of the ones making the claim. That claim is Sola Scriptura.
I will tell you this, search the Bible for the words "foundation/bulwark of truth" and see what the Bible itself says. Hint, it is in 1 Timothy 3:15 "if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."
History Lesson: the word church in this passage is actually a term for a congregation of people. Would you like to know why? Because the historical context is that Christianity was an illegal religion at the time. You would be killed for openly practicing it. There were no large cathedrals or church buildings for Christianity. It wasn't until the early 300s that Christianity was finally a legal religion, and shortly after that became adopted as the religion of the Roman Empire and was called the Roman Catholic Church (catholic meaning universal) because unlike Judaism, Christianity was not a culture and could be adopted by all cultures. It was not strictly Roman.
That last statement is mental gymnastics.