I doubt it. You keep confusing Tradition with the tradition of men. Infant baptism is what the Church practiced from the beginning. Mary's perpetual virginity comes from the Scripture which you Protestants reject and which the early Church had all along. Purgatory, likewise, is not something men just invented but found in Tradition that was with the Church since the Pentecost. The Orthodox do not believe in the Purgatory, but our theology is a hairline different and most of it is cultural and linguistic.
However, with the Bible, there are many verses in which the plain meaning "apparently" directly contradicts the plain meaning of Tradition
Really? That is interesting, considering that the Tradition is what produced the New Testament which you believe in and take for truth.
In every case, it is the meaning of the Bible which is changed to match Tradition
Tradition came before the Bible.
The old, plain meaning is thrown out in favor of a Church approved new meaning in order to match
You have just defined Protestant Reformation.
You might say that nothing was ever thrown out, that it has always been this way. If that is true, then Christianity is not a revealed faith EXCEPT THROUGH MEN.
I thought it was men who revealed the word of God through their own revelation (i.e. The Revelation of John). God did not write the Scripture. Inspired by and writing them are two completely different things. Only Muslims and some Protestants believe God "dictated" the Bible to the scribes.
You believe that there is absolutely no way in the world anyone could correctly read the Bible without the interpretation of the Church
I do. No one believes perfectly, and no one understands the Bible perfectly. Other than Job, the Bible does not name any other mortal to be a perfect man. The only semblance of truth can come from an unbroken Tradition started at the Pentecost and the Apostles, and the only way it can be maintained is by consensus patrum -- taking into consideration the vast knowledge that was revealed (through the Tradition and the Bible). No one particular father is perfect or without sin.
Kosta, you yourself have said on this thread that you deny the historical accuracy of the Bible
I am not a spokesman for the Church. My views are "heresy" for all I know. But I do believe the Bible is true and inerrant; just not as a historical and scientific encyclopedia. I believe in the Bile spiritually. And, no I don't believe there was a major earhquake when Jesus died on the Cross. No one recorded it. I find that strange. I don't believe Jonah lived in an oxygen-deprived acid-filled belly of a fish for three days, without suffocating and being dissolved by digestive juices into delicious food for the fish. I don't believe the Flood either. But I do believe that men lived in caves 60,000 years ago. That does not take away from my belief in God or in the Bible.
I disagree with them, but they are not heretical according to the Catholic Church. The dogmatic belief is that God is the sole creator, and that Adam and Eve were physical progenitors of man who suffered the Fall, and, of course, that Christ is true God and true man who suffered, died and rose on the third day, left the Church behind, and will come again in glory, and judge us onto our resurrection in the body and everlasting life, as the Creed says. The other episodes of salvation history are allowed to be viewed as inperfect accounts of some events important for our formation for their spiritual messages.
You have just defined Protestant Reformation.
LOL!!! That's the funniest thing I have read all week! What is sad is that they don't get it... How on earth can a "totally depraved" man suddenly "discover" the "REAL" Gospel, one that differs from the Gospel given by Christ to the Church and upheld by the Spirit? What arrogance.
Regards
The Tradition produced the NT? That would make Tradition greater than the Bible. This is the simple idea I have been getting hammered on for suggesting it is your view, and yet I am still getting multiple admissions.
Tradition came before the Bible.
More evidence of your view of the relationship between the two, and which is superior.
You have just defined Protestant Reformation.
It is clear we have radically different ideas of what "plain meaning" means. For example, I look to the text of the words first. I think that puts a lot of distance between our views.
God did not write the Scripture. Inspired by and writing them are two completely different things. Only Muslims and some Protestants believe God "dictated" the Bible to the scribes.
I don't know what you mean by "inspired by". I believe that all of scripture is God-breathed, inerrant, and the true word of God. I think that the Gospels were mainly targeted to different audiences, although still applicable to all. I also think that the personalities of the scribes did come through in the writings.
That said, I firmly believe that the actual words of the scripture are from God. I do not at all believe that each scribe of the Bible simply got a formless "inspiration" and then ran with it. I am definitely in the "every jot and tittle" camp. :) I just don't think God would gamble on something as important as His written word, by letting it be written by fallible men with a light bulb over their heads. However, if the Bible really is as flawed as you seem to portray it, in totality, then it would make sense that regular people wrote it with some of it being true, and some of it not.
No one believes perfectly, and no one understands the Bible perfectly. Other than Job, the Bible does not name any other mortal to be a perfect man. The only semblance of truth can come from an unbroken Tradition started at the Pentecost and the Apostles, and the only way it can be maintained is by consensus patrum --
"The only semblance of truth can come from an unbroken Tradition". (Jo Kus, you remember how you were just asking me for examples?) "...the only way it can be maintained is by consensus patrum."
For your side, truth comes from Tradition, and is maintained by agreement in the hierarchy. For my side, truth comes from God, and is maintained by God. Does anyone still want to argue that the Apostolics don't put men above scripture?
And, no I don't believe there was a major earthquake when Jesus died on the Cross. No one recorded it. I find that strange. I don't believe Jonah lived in an oxygen-deprived acid-filled belly of a fish for three days, without suffocating and being dissolved by digestive juices into delicious food for the fish. I don't believe the Flood either.
I genuinely appreciate your honesty here. If you haven't already answered on another post, may I ask on what basis you decide whether a Biblical story is literal? It could be common sense in 2006, or it could be scientific knowledge in 2006, or it could be something else entirely.