Well, I certainly believe that the Apostles, et al. wrote what they taught orally until they wrote, so in that sense I can agree. However, you are jumping ahead when you bring in consensus patrums. Yours is another statement showing that God's word, as He wanted it written, does not reveal the true faith. Catholics have as much as admitted to me that the Bible is of little value to one without the lens of your church.
This shows what I believe to be the Catholic attitude that one should not look to the Bible first to find Christianity, but rather one should look first to the Fathers' interpretations of the Bible to find Christianity. The appearance is that you're saying "don't take the Apostles' words for it, go with the interpretations of those words by the Church". Of course, this is untenable to us. :)
Ah, so to reject the principles of the original reformers is to reject scripture?
Generally, yes.
Why don't you say what you really mean, that the Reformers have their own unwritten tradition, and so a reading of the scripture that is contrary to that particular tradition is anathema?
I think I already said what I really mean. What sort of unwritten tradition are you talking about? All of the theological tradition I can think of right now is written.
The Protestants who are for gay marriage would vehemently disagree that they reject the scripture, and they would argue their position form scripture. I know -- I argued with them.
I'm sure they would attempt to make a scriptural argument. You and I might have a good laugh over it. What has this to do with me or other Reformers? I mean, my position is that Reformed theology is correct! :) So, when someone tries to make a Biblical pro-homosexual agenda argument, my position is that they are not following scripture. What is the controversy here? :)
FK: "I would disagree that Mary appears in Gen. 3 :) It just doesn't fit the flow of thought."
Who will crush the Serpent, and seed of which woman is He?
Christ will crush the serpent as the seed of Eve in that He is her descendant. Verse 15 compares the offspring of the woman and satan. If 15 meant Mary then there's only one offspring, according to Catholics. This would mean only one offspring for satan also, i.e. the anti-christ. Does it really make sense for God to announce that FROM NOW ON, Christ will have enmity for the spawn of satan? This makes no sense since satan was already banished at this point.
In addition, to take your view, one has to say that in verse 13, "the woman" meant Eve, in verse 15 "the woman" meant Mary, and in verse 16 "the woman" meant Eve again. That's not reasonable.
If anything, verse 15 could have meant "any" or "all" women generally, but not Mary individually. What makes much more sense was that God was speaking of the "progeny" of them both (either Eve or all women). Sinners and saints were going to live in conflict with each other.
Of course. This is not attitude, this is the very truth. You want Christianity, come to the Church. If you go to the Bible first, fine, but it will lead you to the Church anyway.
What sort of unwritten tradition are you talking about?
well, for example, there is nothing in the Scripture that teaches that good works are a mere fruit of faith. It is then a product of Protestant unscriptural tradition. Obviouslly, all tradition gets written down at one point.
If 15 meant Mary then there's only one offspring,
Correct, only one offspring, Christ, crushes the serpent.
FROM NOW ON, Christ will have enmity for the spawn of satan?
Yes. Why does it not make sense? Is Satan real today?
in verse 13, "the woman" meant Eve, in verse 15 "the woman" meant Mary, and in verse 16 "the woman" meant Eve again
As is clear each time from the verses themselves; they indeed reflect the symmetry between Eve and Mary.
verse 15 could have meant "any" or "all" women generally, but not Mary individually
That makes no sense. How many Christs are there?