[HandyDandy]

Please reread the post more carefully and more slowly. When Ratzinger says, “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts.” He is talking about commonly held beliefs prior to the Bodily Assumption of Mary being defined. He is speaking of old views of tradition, and then, if you read through to the end you will get to his then current definition of “tradition”, i.e. “Ratzinger's belief of “tradition” included “the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down in the original Word.”

This is exact;y why I took offense to Daniel1212 cutting the statement in half. Because there are people like you around who will read it the wrong way.

[Elsie]

This part?

...was already handed down in the original Word.”

[metmom]

And here Prots are being criticized and condemned for allegedly claiming new revelation that was not previously known before Luther came along.

IIRC, the argument goes something like, *You mean all those people were lost for the first 1500 years of the church?*

And now here is the Roman religion coming along and claiming hidden *truths* that were not revealed until someone came along and figured out stuff that is not even alluded to in Scripture, like the assumption of Mary, almost what? 2,000 years later?

Catholics are so big on allowing for themselves what they deny others and then relabeling it like *development of doctrine* and passing it off as a good thing.

[daniel1212]

When Ratzinger says, “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. He is talking about commonly held beliefs prior to the Bodily Assumption of Mary being defined.”

With a critical absence being the problem.

He is speaking of old views of tradition, and then, if you read through to the end you will get to his then current definition of “tradition”, i.e. “Ratzinger's belief of “tradition” included “the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down in the original Word.” This is exact;y why I took offense to Daniel1212 cutting the statement in half.

See above