Replies

And to be more succinct for you, here's details from New Advent which explains it better than I did

Holy Scripture is therefore not the only theological source of the Revelation made by God to His Church. Side by side with Scripture there is tradition, side by side with the written revelation there is the oral revelation.

This granted, it is impossible to be satisfied with the Bible alone for the solution of all dogmatic questions. Such was the first field of controversy between Catholic theologians and the Reformers. The designation of unwritten Divine traditions was not always given all the clearness desirable especially in early times;

however Catholic controversialists soon proved to the Protestants that to be logical and consistent they must admit unwritten traditions as revealed. Otherwise by what right did they rest on Sunday and not on Saturday?

How could they regard infant baptism as valid, or baptism by infusion?
How could they permit the taking of an oath, since Christ had commanded that we swear not at all?

The Quakers were more logical in refusing all oaths, the Anabaptists in re-baptizing adults, the Sabbatarians in resting on Saturday. But none were so consistent as not to be open to criticism on some point. Where is it indicated in the Bible that the Bible is the sole source of faith? Going further, the Catholic controversialists showed their opponents that of this very Bible, to which alone they wished to refer, they could not have the authentic canon nor even a sufficient guarantee without an authority other than that of the Bible.

Calvin parried the blow by having recourse to a certain taste to which the Divine word would manifest itself as such in the same way that honey is recognized by the palate.

And this in fact was the only loophole, for Calvin recognized that no human authority was acceptable in this matter. But this was a very subjective criterion and one calling for caution. The Protestants dared not adhere to it. They came eventually, after rejecting the Divine tradition received from the Apostles by the infallible Church, to rest their faith in the Bible only as a human authority, which moreover was especially insufficient under the circumstances, since it opened up all manner of doubts and prepared the way for Biblical rationalism.

There is not, in fact, any sufficient guarantee for the canon of the Scriptures, for the total inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible, save in a Divine testimony which, not being contained in the Holy Books with sufficient clearness and amplitude, nor being sufficiently recognizable to the scrutiny of a scholar who is only a scholar, does not reach us with the necessary warrant it would bear if brought by a Divinely assisted authority, as is, according to Catholics, the authority of the living magisterium of the Church. Such is the way in which Catholics demonstrate to Protestants that there should be and that there are in fact Divine traditions not contained in Holy Writ.

In a similar way they show that they cannot dispense with a teaching authority, a Divinely authorized living magistracy for the solution of controversies arising among themselves and of which the Bible itself was often the occasion. Indeed experience proved that each man found in the Bible his own ideas, as was said by one of the earliest reforming sectarians: "Hic liber est in quo quaerit sua dogmata quisque, invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua." One man found the Real Presence, another a purely symbolic presence, another some sort of efficacious presence. The exercise of free inquiry with regard to Biblical texts led to endless disputes, to doctrinal anarchy, and eventually to the denial of all dogma. These disputes, anarchy, and denial could not be according to the Divine intention

Moreover it was enough to look at the Bible, to read it without prejudice to see that the economy of the Christian preaching was above all one of oral teaching. Christ preached, He did not write. In His preaching He appealed to the Scriptures , but He was not satisfied with the mere reading of it, He explained and interpreted it, He made use of it in His teaching, but He did not substitute it for His teaching. There is the example of the mysterious traveller who explained to the disciples of Emmaus what had reference to Him in the Scriptures to convince them that Christ had to suffer and thus enter into His glory. And as He preached Himself so He sent His Apostles to preach; He did not commission them to write but to teach, and it was by oral teaching and preaching that they instructed the nations and brought them to the Faith. If some of them wrote and did so under Divine inspiration it is manifest that this was as it were incidentally. They did not write for the sake of writing, but to supplement their oral teaching when they could not go themselves to recall or explain it, to solve practical questions, etc.

St. Paul, who of all the Apostles wrote the most, did not dream of writing everything nor of replacing his oral teaching by his writings. Finally, the same texts which show us Christ instituting His Church and the Apostles founding Churches and spreading Christ's doctrine throughout the world show us at the same time the Church instituted as a teaching authority; the Apostles claimed for themselves this authority, sending others as they had been sent by Christ and as Christ had been sent by God, always with power to teach and to impose doctrine as well as to govern the Church and to baptize. Whoever believed them would be saved; whoever refused to believe them would be condemned. It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth. And the inference of texts and facts is only what is exacted by the nature of things. A book although Divine and inspired is not intended to support itself. If it is obscure (and what unprejudiced person will deny that there are obscurities in the Bible?) it must be interpreted. And even if it is clear it does not carry with it the guarantee of its Divinity, its authenticity, or its value. Someone must bring it within reach and no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. Now, authority for authority, is it not better to have recourse to that of the Church than to that of the first comer? Liberal Protestants, such as M. Auguste Sabatier, have been the first to recognize that, if there must be a religion of authority, the Catholic system with the splendid organization of its living magisterium is far superior to the Protestant system, which rests everything on the authority of a book.

The prerogatives of this teaching authority are made sufficiently clear by the texts and they are to a certain extent implied in the very institution. The Church, according to St. Paul's Epistle to Timothy, is the pillar and ground of truth; the Apostles and consequently their successors have the right to impose their doctrine; whosoever refuses to believe them shall be condemned, whosoever rejects anything is shipwrecked in the Faith.

Cronos quoted New Advent, saying:

“however Catholic controversialists soon proved to the Protestants that to be logical and consistent they must admit unwritten traditions as revealed. Otherwise by what right did they rest on Sunday and not on Saturday?

How could they regard infant baptism as valid, or baptism by infusion?
How could they permit the taking of an oath, since Christ had commanded that we swear not at all? “

Catholic controversialists proved nothing of the kind.

1) First, in regard to Sunday rather than Saturday. The laws given to Israel through Moses were just that, laws given to Israel. They were not binding on the Gentiles, as the New Testament clearly teaches. Those laws that are binding are stated by Jesus and the Apostles. The commandment regarding the Sabbath is the only one not reiterated in the New Testament. Did someone just forget? Or was it not repeated purposely, in view of what was coming and had been fulfilled in Christ? There is much more to be said here. But it is all taught in the Holy Scriptures.

2) Second, baptism of infants is presupposed. If “all nations” are to be made disciples through baptism and teaching, Matthew 28:18-20, just as “all nations” will stand before the judgment seat of Christ on the last day, Matthew 25:31-46, the burden of proof lies on those who would assert that “all nations” does not mean all people. There is much more to be said here as well, regarding also immersion/infusion (pouring). But it is all taught in the Holy Scriptures.

3) Third, legitimate oath taking was never forbidden. Illegitimate oath taking is self-appointed oath taking. If lawful higher authority requires an oath, it is rendered by the Christian. Case in point: “And the high priest arose and said to Him, ‘Do You say nothing? What is it these men testify against You?’ But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, ‘I put You UNDER OATH by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God?’ Jesus said to him, ‘It is as you say ...’” (Matthew 26:62ff.) I dare say Jesus did not sin in accepting the authority of the high priest, sinful as he was. He was none the less the lawful high priest of Israel and one who could legitimately place someone under oath. All such regarding proper oath giving and taking is taught in the Holy Scriptures.

I am sorry, Cronos, but New Advent is quite incorrect in its assertions here.

The Catholic Church puts forth a false dichotomy, one in which “tradition” is imagined to be something other than, and supplemental to, what is taught in the Holy Scriptures. Tradition, in the right sense, is nothing more than the oral passing on of the same doctrines of the written Scriptures. This false dichotomy, in part, is what the Reformers rejected as part of Rome’s wandering from apostolic doctrine, and rightly. Tradition is to be respected, which is something that some on the Protestant side fail to do. Some, I said. Honoring tradition is nothing more or less than honoring father and mother (God never said that we were to cease honoring them at their death). Thus, Jesus, for example, was constantly pointing Israel back (repent!) to their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob etc. Thus also, the last verse of the Old Testament: “And he (the Elijah who was to come, i.e. John the Baptizer) will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to THEIR fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a curse.” (Malachi 4:6)

Please note that all this can be shown from the Holy Scriptures without even using St. Paul, who sharpens all these points.

The prerogatives of this teaching authority are made sufficiently clear by the texts and they are to a certain extent implied in the very institution. The Church, according to St. Paul's Epistle to Timothy, is the pillar and ground of truth; the Apostles and consequently their successors have the right to impose their doctrine; whosoever refuses to believe them shall be condemned, whosoever rejects anything is shipwrecked in the Faith.

Your religion may condemn Christians for not following the Catholic doctrines but that's fine with me because God condemns your Catholic doctrines...

Mat 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

And here's your priests and bishops...

Luk 20:46 Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;
Luk 20:47 Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.

Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

And your religion is going to condemn me for following the God given doctrine of the scriptures and not following the doctrine of your apostolic successors??? Man O Man, am I ever glad I won't have to stand at the same Judgement you'll be at...

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

That's the doctrine in the written scriptures...

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

It didn't take very long for your religion to turn from sound doctrine and start engineering it's own doctrine...

2Jn 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.

There you go...

He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

And no, God did not give anyone in your religion any new doctrine to push on His children...

2Jn 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
2Jn 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Is that clear enough for those looking to join the Catholic church, with it's own doctrine???