And like Roman Catholicism, Luther was anti-semitic as broadly defined.
Of course, they also all breathed air, while the devil as well as the Lord Jesus invoked Scripture, but one must differentiate btwn conformity with something and the invalid use such.
And it remains that distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels)
Which includes the novel and unscriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity (EPMV) of office, under which Rome asserts she is and will be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. And also presumes protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals.
however, Jesus Himself never said that the biblical books are sufficient. Nor does Paul
Take 2 Timothy 3:16–17, for example: “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” -- if we read his words as implying that Scripture is sufficient with no need of Tradition, then he would be saying that the Old Testament is sufficient. I don’t think any conscientious Christian would want to say that we don’t need the New Testament to have the kinds of teaching and reproof that Paul says in verse 16.
The word that Paul uses here is profitable, not sufficient. The normal word for “sufficient” in Greek that Paul uses elsewhere is hikanos. In 2 Timothy 3:16, he uses the word ophelimos, which is closer to the meaning of “profitable” or “useful.” Something can be profitable without being sufficient. In other words, it can be a necessary condition without being a sufficient one. In fact, that is what the Catholic Church would say. Scripture is necessary because it is the written revelation of God himself. But that does not mean that it is sufficient for every purpose.
An attentive reading of the pastoral epistles reveals that Paul is exhorting Timothy and Titus to hold fast to that which they received verbally from Paul. The word for “teaching” (didaskalia) occurs many times in these letters. Sometimes, the emphasis seems to fall on the activity of teaching, and at others on the content of what is taught. In particular, 1 Timothy 1:10 seems to emphasize the content when it speaks of “whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.”
Look at 1 Timothy 1:10–11 again. The last phrase of verse 10 is further defined by the first phrase of verse 11: “whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.” In other words, the content of these “sound words” is the gospel—the good news about Jesus that Christ himself had entrusted to Paul. Even though Old Testament Scripture predicted the coming of Christ, the fullness of the gospel came to Paul by revelation, as Paul says explicitly in Galatians 1:12: “For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”
So the “sound words” that Timothy and Titus are to hold to is the verbal transmission of the gospel that Paul had taught them. He calls them “the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me” (2 Tim. 1:13). Paul exhorts them to hold on to his verbal teachings. This is exactly what the Catholic Church believes we Christians should do. We should hold on to all that the apostles taught, whether it came in writing or in verbal form. This is exactly the same thing that Paul urges in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, “So, then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”