Such distinction can be made, when for instance direct words of Christ are compared with someone else's speech, but I was not making it.
The word of God through Paul and the other Apostles is all written down.
Some of it is written down. Certainly not all of it: Christ taught the Apostles for three years and one can read the four gospels in three hours, and the Epistles in another hour. Besides, the letters of Paul, especially, do not have the form of a recorded revelation: they address specific problems, refer to teaching done by him orally, make trivial references to his personal belongings, -- they are not written as a systematic re-telling of a revelation. And that is my point: that the Holy Scripture is but a part of the body of thought and fact that Christ communicated to the Apostles.
Does anyone correct the behavior of the Pope today, and be right?
Of course. For example, the previous pope was criticized for his not apologizing to the sex abuse victims, and I think, rightly so. Further, people criticize the Pope on dioctrinal grounds as well and that des not make them un-Catholic. For example, much of the criticism of the Vatican II is valid or at least permissible for a Catholic to make.
Such distinction can be made, when for instance direct words of Christ are compared with someone else's speech, but I was not making it.
Then what does "God-breathed" mean to you? Do you think there were errors in truth in the original writings of the original books, as the Orthodox do? If so, do you think the Gospels are immune to those errors? The sections of the CCC I have read on the subject didn't leave me with the impression that the Church believes some parts of the Bible (NT) are "truer" than others.
FK: The word of God through Paul and the other Apostles is all written down.
Some of it is written down. Certainly not all of it: Christ taught the Apostles for three years and one can read the four gospels in three hours, and the Epistles in another hour.
We know that not every word Jesus ever said is recorded in scriptures, but we do know that God revealed everything He wanted us to know in scriptures. That's what 2 Timothy tells us. Am I to understand that there are secret teachings from Jesus to the Apostles, that we need, that are not in scriptures? And, that these secrets are only known through the Latin Church? That would make Christianity an unrevealed faith, and demand that God share our faith in Him with faith in your men. Only your men have the secrets of God so one must have faith in them. I'm afraid I am unable to share my faith in God with anyone.
Besides, the letters of Paul, especially, do not have the form of a recorded revelation: they address specific problems, refer to teaching done by him orally, make trivial references to his personal belongings, -- they are not written as a systematic re-telling of a revelation.
Who decided what the correct form was for God to use? The Church? I'm not sure I understand your criticism of scripture (Paul) here. Is some scripture of lesser value if it doesn't take a certain form?