Replies

"How, in any way, does that statement make oral tradition more important then the written Word of God? Unless you don't believe that the NT is inspired, then I don't know as that we can carry on a discussion. My discussion is with Catholics who believe that the NT is inspired but believe in traditions not supported by the NT."

Catholics, if they are Catholics, believe that the Bible is part of the written Tradition of the Church, which, along with the Oral Tradition of the Church (much of which is also written, now) is inspired by God. The Bible tradition is not superior in authority to the rest of the traditions of the Church. The Church is the final authority which organizes and regulates the rest.

An analogy: the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The judicial decisions that interpret the Constitution and put it into force have the same authority as the Constitution - they ARE the Constitution for the purpose of that clause of the Constitution, for it is they: the judicial opinions (the "oral tradition") which tell everyone authoritatively what the Constitution MEANS.

The same is true for regulations issued by executive departments which interpret the Constitution and apply it to a set of facts.

It's ALL the Supreme Law of the land. The standard operation of the US Federal government, as understood by both major parties, is the equivalent of the "Catholic View" of the authority of the Bible and the rest of Tradition.

The "Protestant view" of the Constitution is that anybody can read it and understand what it means, and where that persons understanding contradicts what the Supreme Court (i.e.: the Vatican of the Constitution) has said, that the Supreme Court has violated the Constitution and in fact broken the Supreme Law of the Land, substituting its own judgment for the one TRUE supreme law, which is the written text of the Constitution itself.

The two approaches lead to radically different results in the organization of people. The former, "Catholic" approach to the Constitution leads us to the massive American empire and structure of law and governmental authority we have today. The "Protestant" approach to the Constitution results in a proliferation of different schools of thought about what the Constitution REALLY means, because different people read the words differently.

For example, when I read the Second Amendment, straight, strictly and fair, I see a clear authority of State government to regulate firearms possession written right into the Constitution itself. Others tell me, with increasing vehemence which ends up impugning my MOTIVES and my READING COMPREHENSION that there is no such power there, that the right to keep and bear arms is absolute. No, it is not. The first clause of the Second Amendment is "A WELL-REGULATED..." that, right there, gives Constitutional authority to pass law and regulate firearms. Period. Reading 101 as far as I can see. I don't even think it's debatable. And neither do my opponents. I understand that they are misreading the text, but sincere. They usually think I have a secret agenda and REALLY see the text as they do, and am hiding it to try and expand government. They are wrong. I really think it says in plain English that government can regulate firearms. So, what resolution?

Well, my Catholic mind sees the resolution of the issue in Courts and Congress and the States and Executive Agencies - all those things the rest of the Constution lays out. My "Constitutional Protestant" opponents see there being NO supreme authority other than the text itself...which means NO SUPREME AUTHORITY AT ALL, because we cannot agree on what the text says.

And that is why there are 6000 different branches of Protestantism that have formed in the past 500 years, but only one Catholic Church.

It is ultimately a question of authority.

Um, I'm not sure where to start.

First, you never answered why you posted "like Jesus did." In all your Constitution/Amendments example, I never got the meaning of why you posted that. It looks to me like you are attempting to discredit the validity of the NT. The reason I say that is because I have gotten the same kind of answer when debating homosexuals and atheists. Maybe, you didn't mean that, but you certainly didn't clear up why you posted that.

The Bible tradition is not superior in authority to the rest of the traditions of the Church. The Church is the final authority which organizes and regulates the rest.

Hmmm. You are saying that the Bible is another tradition and that the oral tradition is inspired along with it. I'll admit, I haven't seen that angle before. You strangely make "the Church" (which I will assume you mean the Catholic Church) as the final authority. Strange that you left God out as the final authority. You also give "the Church" all the regulation. No mention of the Holy Spirit.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

In all your writing you never attempt to support it with Scripture. Now, I know that you don't hold it higher then your oral beliefs (now written), but when you know you are trying to show God's guidance of your beliefs to a Non-Catholic, How do you expect me to even consider it? Just because you say so? I don't think so.

If you believe the Bible to be the Truth, then use it to convince me, otherwise this is useless bandwidth.

It is ultimately a question of authority.

True. I submit myself to the authority of God through the Holy Spirit as revealed in the Word of God (imperfectly, but you get the point). You submit yourself to the authority of the Catholic Church.

Imagine standing before our Lord and thinking of two possibilities....1) Catholics are right in their traditions and I failed to follow them. When God asks why I didn't do them, I will say that I studied your Word, God, and found no support for them.

Or 2)Catholics are wrong on their non-Biblical traditions and they failed to stand on the Word of God. What will you say? I did it because these men hundreds of years after your son lived/died/and rose again, told me it was important???

If you don't have any problems with that scenario, then there is probably nothing more I can say to you to convince you of your folly.

Sincerely

The Bible tradition is not superior in authority to the rest of the traditions of the Church. The Church is the final authority which organizes and regulates the rest.

This position explains why so many RCCers see no problem with conflicts between the Bible and their oral traditions. They hold an authority above both: The Church.

The problem I see with this idea is that "The Church" is not defined. What is it? What are its core, foundational beliefs? It seems awfully convenient to appeal to have this once-removed, faceless, nonentity whose positions can morph into whatever it pleases and retain higher authority than written (and now we learn, oral) "authorities" even if they run contrary to them.