(I hate this Kindle autocorrect. It turned "snark" into "shark" and "proof" into "poof". Proof into poof! T'was brillig! I'm Louis Carroll!)
OK now, seriously.
If you insist on defining Sacred Tradition as the doctrines and practices of the Faith which we know of per documentary evidence and that were seeded, sprouted, and grown to maturity all before 100 AD, I gotta hand it to ya, you win. It's a slam dunk when you can define your own terms to suit a pre-selected conclusion.
But those are not the parameters that establish the reliability of Sacred Tradition --- and if you had proved that, then you had proved too much. Because the Canon of Scripture was not even settled until well into the Fourth Century, AFTER the Faith had been taught by 10 generations of bishops, AFTER the development of the first creeds and the first liturgies.
For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Bible as we know it today. Christians had the Old Testament Septuagint, and literally hundreds of other books from which to choose.
The Canon is, per definition, the writings approved for use in the Liturgy. There were many, many other Christian writings --- you must know that, because Luke says so in Luke 1:1, "many" undertook to write these things; St. Paul alludes to "other" gospels also, many of them false, and he was writing his first Epistles and planting his first local churches before the first Gospel was even written. Of all these writings, only four (4) Gospels, not one of them signed, made it into the Canon.
There were likewise many Apocalypses written in that time period. Only one of them is canonical.
There were countless letters ("epistles") going back and forth. But we know which ones are canonical.
But we --- you and I --- would NOT know which were to be believed de fide and which were not, unless the Church on the basis of Sacred Tradition (the bishops' teachings, the creeds and liturgies) --- had winnowed them and set forth the Canon as truly reflecting the Faith that had been handed on to Her, and thus worthy of belief.
IF-- IF -- you were to succeed in establishing that there is no real "unbroken chain of custody" as you say, then there is no reliable chain of transmission for Scripture.
But tell me: who established your Canon? And when? Where? And on what basis? I would be interested to know.
As for the church history, of which you, as an overburdened seminarian, were forced to read "thousands and thousands and thousands of pages" for apparently no good reason, why did your professors have you read them if they revealed nothing of the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the the continuity of the truth --- always reeling, always embattled, always by the skin of our teeth, but there it is.
If this continuity of custody and transmission did not exist, or petered out at the death of Paul, then the Muslims would be quite right to say that the corrupt Christians screwed up their Scripture so early that it's all null and void and abrogated by the ipsissimi verbi of the perfect Quran.
And, oh heck, maybe ol' Bart Ehrman was the only one savvy enough to really see through the Catholic Errors of the Ages. Because if the Church wasn't doing the Right Thing in recognizing, canonizing, preserving copying and transmitting the true Word of God from Pentecost to Nicaea, Rome, Carthage, Hippo, Florence, Trent, and beyond, the whole thing is a sieve that doesn't hold water. It's a jigsaw puzzle with a thousand drunken copyists and ten thousand missing pieces: fables, apprentices' errors and spin.
That, or: the Church preserved the Word of God.
Via Sacred Tradition.
I disagree entirely Mrs. Don-o. You are not the first Roman to make this argument.I believe it is a false argument. First, It isn't the Church that defines Scripture, as you are assuming. It is God Himself. Yes, He uses people. It remains His sovereign decision to decree that the Holy Spirit moved men to record His truths, that His words will be preserved through every terrible even in history - even being carried off in the Babylonian Captivity.
Second, you assume that Protestants merely said, "Well those Romans thought this was Scripture, so let's go with that." Not so. The canon of Scripture was reexamined along with the historical record and decisions were made - including that Rome got it wrong on the Deuter books.
So, this argument you are putting forth carries little if any weight. Please remember that 2/3 of Scripture came before the Church age. Remember that Peter identified Paul's writings as Scripture.
And most of all, remember that it is God's sovereign work and not the Roman Rooster.
But tell me: who established your Canon? And when? Where? And on what basis? I would be interested to know.
Love it! Let's see if you can match my answer to you... I'll quote you:"Only a truly ignorant person says there is “no proof” when he has simply not examined the proof. I know where you could start. read reformation history.
:-)
For Rome the time frame is even longer as Rome's canon was officially declared at Trent in 1546 in a 24 yea to 15 nay with 16 abstaining vote.
That doesn't ring too well for the clear unanimity Roman Catholics like to brag about.
Another interesting thing about the group that claims they never change is that at Trent the Vulgate was to be the authoritative text of Scripture. This was change in 1943 when Pius XII allowed Catholic translations to be based on texts other than the Vulgate.
That's a lot of change for the group that claims they don't change.
But we --- you and I --- would NOT know which were to be believed de fide and which were not, unless the Church on the basis of Sacred Tradition (the bishops' teachings, the creeds and liturgies) --- had winnowed them and set forth the Canon as truly reflecting the Faith that had been handed on to Her, and thus worthy of belief.
Demonstrably false. The ekklesia had generally agreed upon the canon. By 200 AD the current canon was accepted by the church. There were some in question due to authorship but were not rejected. No Council approved the Bible. The ekklesia lead by the Holy Spirit did.
The Roman Catholic likes to claim everything they're doing, believing today was handed down from the Apostles.
This is easily disproven.
The "Hail Mary" is a good example.
The Catholic Encyclopedia Online, which bills itself as "the most comprehensive resource on Catholic teaching, history, and information ever gathered in all of human history", has this to say about the "Hail Mary".
In point of fact there is little or no trace of the Hail Mary as an accepted devotional formula before about 1050. All the evidence suggests that it took its rise from certain versicles and responsories occurring in the Little Office or Cursus of the Blessed Virgin which just at that time was coming into favour among the monastic orders.
We know the apparitions claiming to be Mary were not handed down from the Apostles.
Much can be said of the Immaculate Conception as again the Catholic Encyclopedia Online notes:
no direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.
The Gen 3:15 translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. Regarding Luke 1:28 the CE admits is not proof of the dogma.
To further illustrate this was not a universally received belief of the early church Origen, Basil and Chrysostom claim she did sin in some capacity. The CE attempts to dismiss the "older Fathers" as being in error in this matter!
So what does the Roman Catholic have to rely upon for this doctrine? Proof from Reason per the CE! Gee, we want it to be, it has to be, it should be, we will make it be.
But none of this was taught by the Apostles.
I could keep going but I think I've illustrated the Roman Catholic claim of "Tradition" being exactly what the Apostles handed down to be a false claim.
This, this, a thousand times this.
Scripture was compiled from the books read at Mass, not the Mass from the books of Scripture!! Thanks for making this point Mrs. Don-o, it's so very crucial.