I have tried to explain this in the past, but since it is a bit confusing, I will try again.
The word tradition has different meanings. In the earliest Church, "Tradition" referred to Apostolic Teachings, whether orally or presented in form of letter. Tradition = teachings of the Apostles. It was only much later in Christian history where "Tradition" took on a meaning that referred to "oral teachings" of the Apostles that are not in Scriptures explicitly. Thus, today, we have "Apostolic Tradition" refering to oral teachings, and "Scripture" referring to written teachings. And to make matters more confusing, we also have "traditions", which are changeable disciplines, such as whether priests in the Latin rite can marry
Naturally, Apostolic oral and written teachings would share the same "weight", once identified, correct? In either case, once we have God's Word, given orally or written, we give it equal obedience, correct? They have the same source, do they not?
With all of this said, hopefully, you can understand that the Tradition given the Apostles has the same "weight" as the Scripture since God gave them both - first, fully the oral version. But the oral version didn't go away, now, did it? The Bible doesn't say it consumed or abrogated oral traditions. It actually holds that we continue to treat them as God's Word!
In no case, however, do we say that the oral Apostolic Tradition is "above" the Bible. By relating Apostolic Tradition as preceding Scripture does NOT imply that oral teachings are above Scriptures. We are talking apples and oranges. The historical chronology of God's revelation is His choice. If this was a problem that He didn't desire, then He certainly could have done a "Moses" for us, correct?
For example, I look to the text of the words first
LOL!!! Such as "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you shall not have eternal life". Or, "Whatever sins you (apostles) forgive are forgiven, and whatever sins you retain are retained". Or, "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"
You look to the words of the text, and if they don't fit your own eigesis, you change the meaning.
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.
That is refering to the Law, not the individual words of the dozens of books in the Bible. As to God gambling, have you forgotten God's foresight??? You don't think that He has control of man's writing without taking the pen out of his hand?
"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."
This doesn't say that the Church is superior to Scriptures. The truth of INTERPRETATION is found within the Traditions of the Apostles and the consensus patrum - but the Bible itself is the Word of God, inspired and inerrant. The Spirit works through the consensus patrum to bring out the meaning of these Scriptures for the Church in time. Each age will see a different message in parts of Scripture because God has a different message for different cultures. That is what makes the Bible timeless. Without the Spirit's guidance, the bible is another book, is it not? Consider atheists. They read it - and get nothing from it. Thus, the BOOK does not convert people, it is the Spirit that leads the faithful, the Church, to garner the meaning and proper sense of the Scriptures.
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?
You present a false dichotomy with which I disagree with. The main reason why I am Catholic is because I believe that God works THROUGH this Church. You try to separate God from the Church, you try to decapitate the Body. We believe that the Body and the Head are united. Thus, your false dichotomy.
Regards
First, thank you for reiterating the timing element of when tradition was called what. I did need that reminder. :) ... Sure, they would be given the same weight, IF both were absolutely true. My concern is with the reliability of oral teachings in general. From anyone. As I very recently posted, Paul appears to share this same concern in the opening to Luke. In my view, the written word is more reliable, in the long term, and would always take precedence.
In no case, however, do we say that the oral Apostolic Tradition is "above" the Bible.
My whole argument along these lines has been that since you do not believe that the Bible speaks for itself, but rather men speak for the Bible, that men decide what the Bible means IN ORDER THAT it matches what tradition says. It is perfectly reasonable to want or require that the two match. And for whatever reason, the Church has decided to interpret scripture IN LIGHT OF non-scriptural tradition, rather than the reverse. That is where I'm coming from.
You look to the words of the text, and if they don't fit your own eigesis, you change the meaning.
I don't think so. I look to whether the literal meaning of the text denotes something either physically impossible, or which appears to contradict other scripture. If the answer is "yes", then I know that an interpretation is needed. With "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you shall not have eternal life", I know that there must be a symbolic meaning here for two reasons. The first is the doctrine of impossibility. The second is that even when He was here, the Apostles did not literally do this when it was potentially physically possible. So, we both take it symbolically, just in different ways.
As to God gambling, have you forgotten God's foresight??? You don't think that He has control of man's writing without taking the pen out of his hand?
My view is that God's foreknowledge actually does take the pen out of man's hands, because God causes His foreknowledge to come true. My impression is that you do not see it that way, and that God just saw what men would write, and, lucky for Him, it was good. That's the "gambling" aspect.
If I asked you if the Bible was God's inspired word, you would say "yes". I just wonder if we have very different ideas of what "inspired" means. I think that when God inspires, He does so 100% toward what He wants. The result is never in doubt. I'm not sure you would come out that far with me. :) My current impression is that your side sees inspiration perhaps as like a writer might view a great piece of art and feel "inspired" to write something great. The inspiration from the painting only serves to heighten the writer's creative abilities, etc., but it is still the author's original work. Is that close?
Consider atheists. They read it - and get nothing from it. Thus, the BOOK does not convert people, it is the Spirit that leads the faithful, the Church, to garner the meaning and proper sense of the Scriptures.
I agree, they get nothing from it. I would add that the book does not convert people, I do not, the Church does not, only God does. ... I thought that it was your view that the Spirit only leads the hierarchy of the Church. That leaves many faithful Catholics, along with the rest of us, who are not led by the Spirit. I know I've been hammered for suggesting that the Spirit would even give me the correct time. :)