Replies

And to be more succinct for you, here's details from New Advent which explains it better than I did

Holy Scripture is therefore not the only theological source of the Revelation made by God to His Church. Side by side with Scripture there is tradition, side by side with the written revelation there is the oral revelation.

This granted, it is impossible to be satisfied with the Bible alone for the solution of all dogmatic questions. Such was the first field of controversy between Catholic theologians and the Reformers. The designation of unwritten Divine traditions was not always given all the clearness desirable especially in early times;

however Catholic controversialists soon proved to the Protestants that to be logical and consistent they must admit unwritten traditions as revealed. Otherwise by what right did they rest on Sunday and not on Saturday?

How could they regard infant baptism as valid, or baptism by infusion?
How could they permit the taking of an oath, since Christ had commanded that we swear not at all?

The Quakers were more logical in refusing all oaths, the Anabaptists in re-baptizing adults, the Sabbatarians in resting on Saturday. But none were so consistent as not to be open to criticism on some point. Where is it indicated in the Bible that the Bible is the sole source of faith? Going further, the Catholic controversialists showed their opponents that of this very Bible, to which alone they wished to refer, they could not have the authentic canon nor even a sufficient guarantee without an authority other than that of the Bible.

Calvin parried the blow by having recourse to a certain taste to which the Divine word would manifest itself as such in the same way that honey is recognized by the palate.

And this in fact was the only loophole, for Calvin recognized that no human authority was acceptable in this matter. But this was a very subjective criterion and one calling for caution. The Protestants dared not adhere to it. They came eventually, after rejecting the Divine tradition received from the Apostles by the infallible Church, to rest their faith in the Bible only as a human authority, which moreover was especially insufficient under the circumstances, since it opened up all manner of doubts and prepared the way for Biblical rationalism.

There is not, in fact, any sufficient guarantee for the canon of the Scriptures, for the total inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible, save in a Divine testimony which, not being contained in the Holy Books with sufficient clearness and amplitude, nor being sufficiently recognizable to the scrutiny of a scholar who is only a scholar, does not reach us with the necessary warrant it would bear if brought by a Divinely assisted authority, as is, according to Catholics, the authority of the living magisterium of the Church. Such is the way in which Catholics demonstrate to Protestants that there should be and that there are in fact Divine traditions not contained in Holy Writ.

In a similar way they show that they cannot dispense with a teaching authority, a Divinely authorized living magistracy for the solution of controversies arising among themselves and of which the Bible itself was often the occasion. Indeed experience proved that each man found in the Bible his own ideas, as was said by one of the earliest reforming sectarians: "Hic liber est in quo quaerit sua dogmata quisque, invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua." One man found the Real Presence, another a purely symbolic presence, another some sort of efficacious presence. The exercise of free inquiry with regard to Biblical texts led to endless disputes, to doctrinal anarchy, and eventually to the denial of all dogma. These disputes, anarchy, and denial could not be according to the Divine intention

Moreover it was enough to look at the Bible, to read it without prejudice to see that the economy of the Christian preaching was above all one of oral teaching. Christ preached, He did not write. In His preaching He appealed to the Scriptures , but He was not satisfied with the mere reading of it, He explained and interpreted it, He made use of it in His teaching, but He did not substitute it for His teaching. There is the example of the mysterious traveller who explained to the disciples of Emmaus what had reference to Him in the Scriptures to convince them that Christ had to suffer and thus enter into His glory. And as He preached Himself so He sent His Apostles to preach; He did not commission them to write but to teach, and it was by oral teaching and preaching that they instructed the nations and brought them to the Faith. If some of them wrote and did so under Divine inspiration it is manifest that this was as it were incidentally. They did not write for the sake of writing, but to supplement their oral teaching when they could not go themselves to recall or explain it, to solve practical questions, etc.

St. Paul, who of all the Apostles wrote the most, did not dream of writing everything nor of replacing his oral teaching by his writings. Finally, the same texts which show us Christ instituting His Church and the Apostles founding Churches and spreading Christ's doctrine throughout the world show us at the same time the Church instituted as a teaching authority; the Apostles claimed for themselves this authority, sending others as they had been sent by Christ and as Christ had been sent by God, always with power to teach and to impose doctrine as well as to govern the Church and to baptize. Whoever believed them would be saved; whoever refused to believe them would be condemned. It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth. And the inference of texts and facts is only what is exacted by the nature of things. A book although Divine and inspired is not intended to support itself. If it is obscure (and what unprejudiced person will deny that there are obscurities in the Bible?) it must be interpreted. And even if it is clear it does not carry with it the guarantee of its Divinity, its authenticity, or its value. Someone must bring it within reach and no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. Now, authority for authority, is it not better to have recourse to that of the Church than to that of the first comer? Liberal Protestants, such as M. Auguste Sabatier, have been the first to recognize that, if there must be a religion of authority, the Catholic system with the splendid organization of its living magisterium is far superior to the Protestant system, which rests everything on the authority of a book.

The prerogatives of this teaching authority are made sufficiently clear by the texts and they are to a certain extent implied in the very institution. The Church, according to St. Paul's Epistle to Timothy, is the pillar and ground of truth; the Apostles and consequently their successors have the right to impose their doctrine; whosoever refuses to believe them shall be condemned, whosoever rejects anything is shipwrecked in the Faith.

From Eerdman's commentary on the Bible -->, note, this book (2 Peter) IS inspired and IS authentic scripture and canon,

2 Peter is the last will and testament of the apostle Peter, but was probably composed within two decades after his death. No book in the Bible had more difficulty establishing itself in the canon. As late as Eusebius (d. 371) some did not consider 2 Peter to be from teh Apostle or part of the canon (Hist. Eccl.); doubts contined for centuries (e.g. Calvin and Luther). Even if
1. Early Christians rejected pseudonymous letters,
Peter's name begins the letter (2 Pet 1:1-2) and
3. Petrine reminscences do appear (1:16-19), the letter is actually in the form of an ancient testament, a literary form consistently connected with pseudonymity (Bauckham). This literary form was well known in the first century and, if noticed, would have led readers to suspect pseudonymity. (For other early testaments, cr. Genesis 49, Deuteronomy 31-33; Matthew 24-25; John 14-16; Acts 20:17-34; 2 Timothy; 2 BAruch 78-86; Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs)

There is clear evidence that 2 Peter is either dependent on Jude or on a later revision of a tradition used by the author of Jude and then by the author of 2 Peter. That 2 Peter and Jude reveal some striking similarities (2 Pet 2:1-8 with Jude 4:16; 2 Pet 3:13-14,18 with Jude 24-25; 2 Pet 1:5 with Jude 3; 2 Pet 1:1-2 with Jude 1-2; 2 Pet 1:13 with Jude 5 and 2 Pet 3:13-14 ,18 with Jude 24-25) is not the whole story: these passages contain highly unusual terms and expressions and make dependence likely. Though the evidence is not as clear as it is in the Synoptic Gospels, a majority of scholars think 2 Peter is a reapplication of Jude (Elliott; Meade; Neyrey; Watson)

A few items in 2 Peter indicate that this "epistolary testmaent" was put together after the death of Peter. 2 Pet:3-4 indicates that
a.sufficient time had elapsed for doubts to arise about the parousia, suggesting a decade or two after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, an event around which a large number of Jesus' prophecies centered and after which some of the early Churches may well have expected the coming of the Son of Man (cf Matt 10:23; 24:29-31; In 1 Pet 4:7 imminent expectation still dominates the horizon; cf. also 1:13; 4:17-19), and that
b. The first generation of christians (here called "the fathers") had already died

Assuming liberally that the first "fathers" lived seventy years, we can infer that the fathers would have died by AD 80. The crisis created by the destruction of Jerusalem and the death of the apostles was no doubt serious. 2 Peter attempts to come to terms with this crisis.

Finally the style, grammar and theological concerns of 2 Peter are at some remove from those of 1 Peter. The vocabulary is unusual, the style of the letter is characterized by an exaggerated rhetoric and almost grotesque use of redundancy, and its theology diverges from that of 1 Peter in its concerns, center and orientation (Elliott; Bauckham). The letter probably emerges from a Hellenistic Jewish context, possibly in Asia (Neyrey: 118-20; Webb), while 1 Peter breathes a different atmosphere. The allusion to Paul's "scriptural writings" (cf. 3:15-16) is also more probably in the later part of the first century. IT is then reasonable to think that an associate of Peter later put down "Petrine" thougths in an attempt to speak apostolically to a time that was subapostolic (Bauckham, Meade). In what follows we shall refer to the author as the "Apostle" meaning by this only that the author had an association with Peter
BThe author of 2 Peter speaks prophetically against recent trends in some churches. His concerns are:
1. a denial of the parousia and skepticism over the return of Christ (1:16-18; 3:4, 5-10) and
2. an ethical permissiveness not unlike that of Epicureanism (2:2,10,13,18,19-22; 3:2, 15-16) The False teachers (2:1) that propagate these two ideas are causing division (2:1-3,14,18) and may well claim speficalm, Spirit-inspired interpretation for their views (1:20-21). It is possible that their views contained some heterodox beliefs about Jesus Christ (2:1,10) and they seem to have questioned the likelihood of the final judgement (2:3-10). We must bear in mind, however, that this picture of the opponenet has been drawn by the author and is in part rhetorical.

Peter's message in this context is that his readers should
1. hold fast to the ancient faith taught since the days of the apostles (1:12-21;3:1-2)
2.live a life of holiness and love (1:3-11;3:11-18) and
3. be aware of the consequences of those who have repudiated the ways of God (2:1022)
BOutline: In general, the Apostle begins his letter with a typical ancient greeting formula (1:1-2), an introductions (1:3-15)(exordium) with both theme (1:3-11) and occasion (1:12015), the argument itself (1:16-3:13) (probatio), and a conclusions (3:14-19) (peroratio).