[HarleyD]

We, Catholic and Orthodox together claim nothing else, that we are foundationally orthodox historically

Yes you were foundationally orthodox. What the author states is true and most Protestants who have studied history would agree. You remained foundationally orthodox until around 600AD. After that it was down hill.

So we agree, do we not, that things can be logically deduced from the Bible rather than read in the Bible.

Some things. Can you deduce abortion is wrong from scripture? Yes, there are scripture references that murder is wrong. Can you deduce that we should pray to Mary? No, there are no scriptures that hints of praying to Mary.

Let me do some Catholic mischief here. We know Timothy had been consecrated by St. Paul as bishop. The verse refers to "man of god" and is addressed to Timothy. Well, this scripture, ladies and gentlemen, clearly and explicitly shows that the scripture is to be read by the clergy.

Let me do some Protestant mischief here:

Your word I have treasured in my heart, that I may not sin against You. Psalms 119:11

Stand on the ground of the Church, and you can use and understand the scripture as written, till your teacher comes back. Stand outside the Church, and the bets are off.

See Psalms 119:11.

The scriptures cited here refer to tradition as authoritative.

It would be superfluous to spend any time in proving that Tradition has faithfully kept the Apostolic belief in the inspiration of Scripture. – New Advent (see post 172)

Christ did a lot of obscuring and negating of the Old Testament Himself,

You won’t find much support within the Church on this statement.

First, that criterion should include the oral tradition revealed in the first century, passed on through generations and gradually put on paper by the Fathers of the Church in the ensuing Patristic period.

"These books are held by the Church as sacred and canonical, not as having been composed by merely human labour and afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been transmitted to the Church as such." (Concil. Vatic., Sess. III, const. dogm, de Fide, cap. ii, in Denz., 1787).

Well, this is exactly what the living Magisterium of the Church is, ladies and gentlemen, the engine of biblical reform. If the Bible falsifies it, we don't teach it.

WOW!!! What a statement. This is similar to Ignatius statement, “If I see white and the Church says it is black, then it is black.” With all due respect, why should I bother with the rest of your post. If the Church states a position it doesn’t matter what the Bible says according to your statement. According to New Advent this was NOT the historical “orthodoxy” position (see post 172) nor would you get many Catholics to admit your position. However I will say at least you’re an honest postmodern Catholic. As Yoda would say, “Orthodox, you are not.”

[annalex]

you were foundationally orthodox

Sez you. The article says we are, present tense. If you have the problem with the article, post to whoever posted the article, then he would respond, etc., etc. This is the Freeper way.

Can you deduce that we should pray to Mary?

We can deduce that we may pray to Mary if we want to, which is the Catholic teaching. Likewise, we can deduce that we may read the scripture, if we want to, which is ditto.

Protestant mischief

Good try. That is mischief? Learn from me: get ordained or close your Bible. Now. The scripture, 2 Timothy 3:17, commands it. Look it up -- it does.

"It would be superfluous to spend any time in proving that Tradition has faithfully kept the Apostolic belief in the inspiration of Scripture".

Look up "superfluous"; the quote from New Advent does not relate to the quote from me in 176, nor should it raise any eyebrows by itself.

You won’t find much support within the Church on this statement

I quote scripture to prove my point, and yes, the Church teaches that Christ showed us the proper way to understand and relate to the Old Testament.

Concil. Vatic., Sess. III, const. dogm, de Fide, cap. ii

Neither here or there. The author posits first century revelatory origin as a criterion of authority and I disprove his thesis.

WOW!!!

Look up "falsify". You either do not know what "falsifies" mean or you do not know what "we don't teach" means. Your answer does not relate to my statement you are wowed by.