Reply To Protestant Bible Study

The following is a reply to a Bible study a protestant sent to me. It is only an exercise for me concerning Catholic apologetics. Nothing I haven't said before, but I'll keep it up here just for reference. 

The stated purpose of the Bible study outline is to aid those who wish to seek truth by having people compare the Catholic Church to the Bible. A protestant assumption is being made here, however, that the Bible alone is the measure of truth. It is not, for scripture itself says that the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church (1 Tim 3:15) and that we are supposed to hold fast the traditions passed on to us (2 Thess 2:15). Further, Christ comes to establish a Church and one that will not fall (Matt 16:18). While this is perhaps a great weakness for protestants, it is not the focal point of this study. As the quoted Constitution on Revelation says (which is properly entitled Dei Verbum), we hold both the Church Tradition, or the deposit of faith, and scripture on the same level, but not scripture alone. 

Matthew 23:9 is cited as contrary to the Catholic practice (not ritual or teaching) of calling priests "father". This is not a good understanding of the text. First, this would exclude calling even our biological fathers "father" and clearly Jesus didn't mean that (Matt 15:4-6). Nor does he mean this in a spiritual sense as he also warns us to not call other people teachers (v. 8 & 10), but clearly we have hundreds of well accredited and trained theological professors at seminaries all across the world. So what does Jesus mean? As indicated in v. 11, he means that we do not take these titles so that they supplant the place of God, because that is pride. The preceding two paragraphs starting at the beginning of the chapter make this evident that this is the issue with those whom Jesus is criticizing and why.

With that in mind, consider the second problem with this understanding of the text, which is that it is actually done with approval elsewhere in the Bible. In the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:24, 27, 30), the rich man refers to Abraham as "father". There are multiple times in scripture where Abraham is referred to as "father" (James 2:21) Clearly Abraham was not his biological father, so what did he mean? It cannot mean genetic father for Romans 4:16 tells us to understand Abraham in the spiritual sense. The spiritual meaning of "father", one that does not supplant God, is used explicitly in 1 Corinthians 4:15, which reads (NIV), "Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." This is all Catholics mean when we call a priest "father."

Two verses are cited as being against the practice of the intercession of the saints. The first is Col 3:17, which reads, "And whatever you do,whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." This presents no problem because we always end our prayers "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Asking the saints to pray for us is done in the name of Jesus. This becomes more evident when we consider the second verse cited, 1 Tim 2:5, which reads, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus..." The first thing that should be noted is that the sentence begins with the word "for", which means that God being the one mediator is the reason for something, that being whatever preceded it. And what precedes the verse? It says at the beginning of the chapter, "1 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people... 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." (Emphasis mine) It is precisely that God is the mediator between for man that we can indeed give petitions, prayers and intercession for others, because it is done in His name. Once again, we see that God does not supplant human effort, but rather He makes human efforts possible. It is not an "either-or" rather it is a "both-and". 1 Tim supports the Catholic position, rather than contradict it. An additional consideration for the protestant is whether or not he himself can pray for me. If he believes that God being the only mediator means man can not pray for one another, then he would have to stop praying for others, which is contrary to the teachings of the Bible (Romans 15:30). 

Leviticus 26:1 is cited as being against having images and statues in Church. First, Leviticus could not possibly mean no images and statues in church as there was no church during the writing of Leviticus. Second, if what is meant is that we cannot have statues or religious images at all then we have the strange consequence of having to get rid of wonderful and beautiful statues like Michaelangelo's Pieta, all crucifixes and crosses in homes and on necklaces, portraits of Christ on the cross and even churches themselves like Notre Dame or the Cologne Cathedral as they themselves are images that aid in our worship (most Cathedrals are built in the shape of a cross). But is that what God is really telling us to do? Not likely, though some Protestants do go to that extreme. Considering that God himself ordered graven images (Ex 25:18) and Old Testament characters fell before those graven images (Joshua 7:6-8), that makes it doubly unlikely. Rather, what does seem likely is that we ought not worship these things in place of God, as the pagans do. Like having pictures of our own family members on our walls, Catholics have images of Christ and His Saints to remember those we love. 

Luke 16:26 is cited as supposedly being against the doctrine of Purgatory because Lazarus cannot help the rich man while they are in Hades. It isn't clear as to how this shows purgatory is false, for the doctrine of purgatory does teach that those in purgatory cannot help one another. The Catholic Church has an official name for those in purgatory: The Church Helpless (in contrast to the Church Militant which describes the Church on Earth, and the Church Victorious, which describes the Church in Heaven.) We do know from elsewhere in scripture that Jesus comes to this third state of death, other than heaven and hell, and releases souls from there (1 Pet 3:19, Eph 4:8). What does a third state that isn't heaven or hell sound like, that has obviously saved men like Abraham and sinners like the rich man? It sounds a lot like purgatory. So rather than a text against purgatory, the parable itself vaguely supports it. 

But there is more clear texts on the issue of purgatory. First, we know that God does not tolerate any kind of sin nor can there be sin in heaven. Yet we also know that not all sin leads to death (1 John 5:16-17). They don't deserve the death of Hell, but neither do they get to be in heaven. So, where do these people go? Jesus makes it clear that there will be forgiveness of sins not just in this world, but in the world to come (Matthew 12:32) even though some people will not be forgiven in either. Later in Matthew, Jesus tells us that some people will get into heaven sooner than other people (Matthew 21:31). In 1 Cor 3:12-15, we see how people will be judged and enter into heaven ("receive their reward") and some people will be saved, but only by going through fire first (v. 15) So it is clear that man can be saved, even if they have some purging that needs to be done first. 

1 Timothy 2:5 has been cited for being against the doctrine of confession (or reconciliation). Enough has been said about this verse when we discussed prayers and intercession of the saints, and the main point is that this verse proves that intercession of other people is made possible by Christ, and is not excluded by Christ, and so doesn't require repeating.

So, where then do Catholics get the idea of confessing to a priest? A few places. The first is John 20:21-23, which reads, "Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (Emphasis mine) Jesus gives the apostles the authority to forgive sins, because Jesus has all authority, and because He has all the authority, he can give it to anyone he wants. A second place in scripture that shows us that Jesus gave the authority to forgive sins to men is in Matthew 9. After Jesus forgives the sins of a paralytic, the Pharisees objected. Scripture then says, "4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7 Then the man got up and went home. 8 When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man." 

A scribbled note in the margins reads, "Confess to one another" which is likely a reference to James 5:16 which reads, "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective." So, let us ask, who is the "each other" that this verse is talking about? Scripture tells us. In verse 14, James tells us to call forth the elder (which we get the word "Bishop" from) so that he may pray and anoint us with oil (something Catholics still do today, called Last Rites). And if he confesses, his sins will be forgiven, which as we have seen earlier, Jesus gave that authority to men. So this verse supports the Catholic position. 

Infant baptism is the next subject, but before I proceed, I want to note that the practice of infant baptism is not a uniquely Catholic practice. In fact, Martin Luther, the first Protestant, was in favor of it and is why Lutherans still practice infant baptism today. John Calvin, one of the more prominent Protestants during the reformation and still is today, was so much in favor of infant baptism, he killed those who denied infant baptism. I would know, I came from that movement of protestants whom Calvin murdered, the Anabaptists. When I began investigating the claims of the Catholic Church, this was a monumental issue for me, but I knew that persecution didn't come from the Catholics, it came from my protestant brothers. The point is that there are many protestants who agree with Catholics on this issue. 

Matthew 28:19-20 is cited as being against infant baptism. Again, it isn't clear how this is against infant baptism, though a scribbled note says that infants cannot observe. Perhaps it is true that infants cannot observe what Jesus has taught, but wouldn't that mean infants are exempted from that requirement? Surely, this doesn't say that infants shouldn't be baptized, especially since the commandment to observe His teachings and the commandment to be baptized are separate and distinct. And once we see what baptism is and what it does, it does become obvious that infants should be baptized. 

Baptism washes away sin (Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21, Mark 16:16). But Original Sin is a stain on human kind (Rom 5:12-21, 1 Cor 15:22). That includes infants. So, infants who die with original sin on their soul don't see God. So, in order for infants to get rid of Original Sin and see God, they must be baptized. The logic is clear here: Baptism washes away original sin and babies have original sin, so if you don't want your baby to have original sin your baby gets baptized. 

Baptism is also the entrance of the New Covenant (John 3:5). The sign of the Old Covenant was circumcision, which baptism now replaces (Colossians 2:11-12). But let us ask, in the Old Covenant, when was a child circumcised? According to Leviticus 12:3, it was on the eighth day of the child's birth. So, if circumcision is replaced by baptism, and you could be circumcised as a baby, it stands to reason that you could be baptized as baby as well. The covenant is an entrance into the family and people of God. Jesus will not turn away babies. In fact, Jesus has strong words for people who deny that children should come to Him (Matthew 19:13-15, Luke 18:15-17, Mark 10:13-16). Adding on to this, scripture records entire household getting baptized (Acts 11:14, 16:15 & 33, 18:8) which means in at least some of them, these households include infants. This last point isn't a slam dunk of a point, but it does add on to the probability of infant baptism being correct. 

Interestingly enough, there is a quotation from the Encyclopedia Britannica concerning infant baptism, which says that there is no certain evidence of infant baptism earlier than the 3rd century. There are a few problems with this. First, it was difficult to try to read this quotation in context because I do not have a hard copy of the volume. However, I looked online at the Encyclopedia Britannica website and typed in "baptism", and what I found is significantly different. There, it reads, "Both the New Testament and the Church Fathers of the 2nd century make it clear that the gift of salvation belongs to children, however. Tertullian seems to have been the first to object to infant baptism, suggesting that by the 2nd century it was already a common practice." If it was already a common practice by the 2nd century, then it was already in place for years before that. And if Catholics are right, that is because it goes back all the way to the time of the Apostles themselves! So the Encyclopedia Britannica may at one point have supported the protestant position, but the updated online version currently supports the Catholic position. 

Secondly, why confine ourselves to just secular sources of history? What did the early Christians themselves believe? Polycarp, born 70 A.D. and was a disciple of the Apostle John, says, “Eighty and six years I have served Him, and He has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my king and savoir?” This should indicate that Polycarp was baptized in the year 70, and so was baptized as an infant. St. Justin mentions people of 60 to 70 years of age “who were disciples of Christ from childhood", and so must have been baptized in the years 85-95 A.D., which also indicates baptism at a very young age, and at the very beginning of Church history. 

Matthew 19:7-9 is cited in support of divorce. It should be noted that historically, divorce wasn't allowed in the Christian world until Henry VIII decided he wanted to marry Anne Boleyn but couldn't because he was already married, 1500 years after the establishment of the Church and 1500 years of no divorce among Christians. He then killed them both and some other wives as well, and this is historically where protestants get divorce from. So let us examine the biblical evidence then. Matthew 19:7-9 reads, " 'Why then,' they asked, 'did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?' 8 Jesus replied, 'Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.'" First, the passage makes a distinction between sexual immorality (or fornication in the KJV) and adultery. The two are not the same. the Greek explicitly makes this distinction, for the Greek word porneia is not the Greek word for adultery, which is moichao. And in fact, the word moichao is used in these two passages for the word adultery. So, now we ask, what does porneia mean?

Porneia is basically an illicit relationship, or a sexual relationship that would not validate a marriage. In the Old Testament, the word is used to describe incestuous relationships (Lev. 18:6-18). In the New Testament, the same idea is there, as in 1st Corinthians 5:1, which reads, "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife." This demonstrates that fornication or sexual immorality is what we commonly understand it to be, sexual relations between persons who are not actually married, sexual relations in an illicit and invalid relationship, it is pre-marital, not extra-marital. This is consistent with what Jesus teaches in Luke 16:18, when he says, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Second, the protestant interpretation contradicts the immediate context just one verse before where Jesus rejects the Mosaic provision of divorce as being against God’s creational plan for the permanence of the marriage union: "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt. 19:6). The present imperative of the verb (kovizeto) "let not separate" enjoins the cessation of a practice in progress, namely, the severing of marriage unions permanently established by God. 

In the light of Christ’s refusal to accept the Mosaic provision for divorce, it is hard to imagine that He would make allowance for the dissolution of marriage in the case of sexual misconduct. If the latter were true, Jesus would be contradicting what He had just affirmed regarding the permanence of the marriage union. His teaching would represent not a rejection of the Mosaic concession but the Pharisees certainly understood Jesus’ teaching to be in conflict with Moses ("Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"—Matt 19:7). The clear conflict between Jesus’ teaching on the permanence of the marriage union and the Mosaic concession, logically rules out the wider meaning of porneia as sexual misconduct.

Third, interpreting the exception clause as sexual misconduct contradicts Paul’s "no divorce" teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. In this passage, Paul claims to give Christ’s own command by enjoining the wife not to separate from her husband and the husband not to divorce his wife. The total prohibition of divorce by Paul reflects the teaching of Jesus found in Mark 10:8-12 and Luke 16:18. 

Fourth, there is no provision in the Pentateuch for divorce in the case of adultery. The penalty for proven adultery was death (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22, 23-27) and not divorce. The same was true in the case of a woman who had engaged in premarital sex before marriage (Deut 22:13-21). She was stoned to death and not divorced. There are no indications in the Pentateuch that divorce was ever allowed for sexual misconduct, so interpreting the conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees in this manner has no Biblical background. 

A fifth problem with interpreting the exception clause as sexual misconduct is that it fails to take into account the astonishment of the disciples at the saying of Jesus. The astonishment expressed in the apostles’ answers would be incomprehensible—‘then it is not expedient to marry’ (19:10). Their astonishment is only explicable if Christ in fact rejected all possibility of the dissolution of marriage. His rejection is reinforced by the statement: "Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given" (Matt 19:11). 

So, just to recap because I know I said a lot, the verse in question, Jesus wasn't saying that divorce is okay in cases of fornication, rather he was saying that relationships based on fornication weren't valid relationships to begin with, which means that divorce doesn't apply to them, which means if they went off and got married, they wouldn't be adulterous. The only people who are being adulterous are those who were married and then got divorced, but fornicators were never married in the first place. And the immediate context of the passage makes it clear Jesus was being absolute about divorce not being allowed, and is reinforced by Paul elsewhere. Divorce is not allowed. 

Ecclesiastes 9:10 is cited as being against the practice of praying with the dead. The first thing to note is the genre. Ecclesiastes wasn't written as a theological work, like the Epistles are, or to give a history of theological history, like Genesis and the Gospels are, but rather, like the Psalms and Song of Songs, this is the genre of poetry (very existential as well), and so extreme caution should be taken when trying to extract doctrinal truths from it. As far as one can tell, there hasn't been any caution taken here, just more verse slinging and no explanation. So, the genre of Ecclesiastes makes it a bad source for doctrine.

Second, a look at context must be made. The point Solomon is trying to make, when you read it from the beginning of the book, is a cynical one. This is obvious if you just read the whole book through. In chapter 9 itself, he makes a distinction between the living and the dead, as the ones with knowledge and without (folly), those who please God, and those who don't. But he says that between those two men, both will end up going to Sheol. That's bad news for an Old Testament Jew, to know that you could be very happy and perhaps even righteous, but there is no difference in fate between a good guy and a bad guy. And that why Solomon says, repeatedly, "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity" but we certainly do believe there is a difference between the fates of the righteous and unrighteous, and we clearly don't believe that all is vanity. Solomon is saying to live it up, even have something to drink! Why? Because it's all pointless. In his cynical sermon, Solomon says that even in death, nothing can be done. So, given this context, we know that Solomon is exaggerating the denial of good things, and things that can be done, and things that do have real meaning. But if Solomon is exaggerating about death being a detachment that can nothing for us, doesn't that mean a sober and realistic view of the afterlife is that it certainly can do something for us?

A third and supplemental point to be made about the passage is that it explicitly talks about Sheol, and as we have seen from a previous verse talking about the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, those in Sheol certainly do have consciousness of what is happening.

Fourth, common sense understanding of other clearly taught teachings of the afterlife contradicts this interpretation. If the dead do not know nothing, then how can they know they are in heaven or in hell? How do they learn that they are with God or without Him? How do they know if they are in bliss or in torment? All this is impossible under this interpretation of this verse concerning the afterlife, but what we know about the afterlife that is clearly taught, without the haze of poetry, does contradict that understanding. So, it is best that we just not try to pull doctrine from this book that simply isn't there.
So, where do Catholics get this practice of prayers with the dead? One place is in 2 Maccabees 12:43-45, which reads, "43 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. 44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." Here we have prayers for the dead, which ancient Jews believed were useful. 

Now, because you are Protestants, you do not believe that this counts as scripture. We can have a conversation as to why it is scripture, but for now, let me make some points that don't rely on 2 Macc being scripture. First, even if this book were to be shown to be not scripture, it wouldn't follow that it is false. My math book is not inspired by God, but it is true nonetheless. So God may not have inspired the book, but the practice historically happened anyways. Second, Jesus accepts the historicity of 2 Macc because the Jewish practice of Hanukkah comes only from 2 Macc. And Jesus celebrates Hanukkah in John 10:22 (and is still celebrated by Jews today). Now, I think this shows that Jesus probably thought 2 Macc was scripture, but even if you don't agree, he does at least approve of its historicity, and by extension, prayers for the dead. 

A second place Catholics get prayers with the dead is Hebrews 12:1, which reads, "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, ad let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us". And who are the great cloud of witnesses? They are Abel (11:4), Enoch (11:5), Noah (11:7), Abraham (11:8), and the list goes on and on all throughout chapter 11 naming Old Testament Saints. And these people are surrounding us, in a great cloud (and clouds and smoke usually indicate God's presence). If the dead do not know what we are doing, how could they surround us and how could they encourage us to finish the race?

Third, the New Testament records examples of prayers on behalf of the dead. Jesus prayed for a dead Lazarus, and he came back to life because of it (John 11:41-44) and the apostles prayed for the dead as well (Acts 9:40-41). God honored these prayers, and continues to do so.
Finally, there is a huge misunderstanding about the dead. They aren't actually dead. Jesus says that whomever believes in Him will never die (John 11:25-26) and rebukes the Sadducees who don't believe that as ignorant by saying, "24 Jesus said to them, “Is not this why you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 26 And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? 27 He is not God of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong.” Those who have died in God's grace are not dead, but are more alive than we are because they are already perfectly united with God. This is a great cloud of witnesses, and as the prayers of the righteous are powerful and effective (James 5:16), we should continuously ask for their intercession. 

Matthew 6:7 is cited against being against vain repetitions. I have no issue with this. But what is probably meant is just repetitions, whether vain or not. We all agree vain repetitions shouldn't be done, but the prohibition here is not on repetition, but on the vanity. So, are all repetitions done in vain? No. Are some done in vain? Probably. But that's a case by case basis, and is certainly not a problem unique to Catholicism. When I was a protestant, I can't tell you how many times I've repeated the repetitious song Our God is an Awesome God. Are those in vain for the mere fact we repeated the same lines over and over again? No, but if your heart wasn't in it, then you're the problem, not the song, and not the prayers. 

Ephesians 4:7 is cited as being against sacramental grace. I'm having trouble understanding this one, and as I hope I have established thus far, I am charitable in my understandings of the other position, but I don't know exactly how this applies. Does this person who cites Ep 4:7 believe that sacraments don't confer grace in the Catholic understanding? Or does he think that grace cannot increase and hence no sacraments can be given as they increase graces? It isn't clear what this citation is getting at. 

The last point is about Peter "establishing the charter of the Roman Catholic Church". The Catholic Church does not believe that Peter wrote any such charter. So, we don't believe that, and is not something I have to explain. The Encyclopedia Britannica is cited once again, and once again, I went to the online version, and typed in St. Peter, which took me to a page entitled "Saint Peter the Apostle". Towards the end of the article, it states, "The absence of any reference in Acts or Romans to a residence of Peter in Rome gives pause but is not conclusive." And do you know why it would be inconclusive? Because Peter could have gone to Rome after the epistles were written. 

The encyclopedia also writes, "If Peter did write 1 Peter, the mention of 'Babylon' in 5:13 is fairly reliable evidence that Peter resided at some time in the capital city. [...] 'Babylon' is a cryptic term indicating Rome, and it is the understanding utilized in Revelation 14:8; 16:19; 17:5, 6 and in the works of various Jewish seers." So basically, Peter himself tells us he was in Rome. 

The encyclopedia also misunderstands what we mean by the Primacy of Rome or Primacy of Peter. They think that because the lack of evidence (at least in the hard copy of the encyclopedia, evidence which is presented in the online version) between Peter and Rome is scant, that it is therefore hard to establish Primacy. What it fails to understand is that Catholics believe Jesus gave primacy to Peter in Matthew 16, and that primacy was an office, an office that follows the successor of Peter wherever he goes, whether he went to Rome or not. So for example, we say "The White House" in reference to the President. But these are short hands. Trump could literally be calling me from Air Force One over Iraq and we would still say I received orders from the White House, even though it didn't come from the literal White House in D.C. Likewise, the successor of Peter needn't be in Rome, he just happens to take over that ministry. Another U.S. example is the inauguration of Lyndon B. Johnson. Kennedy ran D.C., so to speak, but after his assassination, his successor was named, and Johnson was inaugurated in Dallas, and ran D.C. thence on. Take this last Papal election. Pope Francis isn't Italian, he's Argentinian. And before him, was the German Benedict XVI. And before him, was the Polish John Paul II. So this issue about the location itself is really silly. It's not the location that matters, it is the office or title. Pope is Pope no matter where he is. President is President no matter where he is. What we want to know is, do they have that office legitimately? And Peter does. 

No scripture was actually cited against Petrine Primacy (office of the Pope), so I won't cite any for it either as this study is already long enough. 

Some other quotations are given, but they mostly betray misunderstandings, and as this is supposed to be Biblically focused, I'll let those slide for now. 

There is an optimism about Catholics returning to the Bible as the sole authority from God, but as I hinted at in the opening paragraph, that teaching (Sola Scriptura) is itself not found in the Bible, and the idea that the Bible is the only infallible source for Christians is a man made doctrine itself (made up by Martin Luther in the 1500's). 

I pray this helped further your understanding of why Catholics believe what they believe.