The Biblical canon is extra-scriptural. What came first the oral teachings of Christ and the apostles or the Bible?
The word "Trinity" is extra-scriptural, not to mention the catechetical formulae about who Jesus was. If Christ's divinity and humanity was as plain to understand as you perhaps take for granted, the Arian heresy would never have arisen, not to mention Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, etc.
If every man or woman is his or her own pope, chaos is the end result.
On this we agree:
Mary was an exceptional woman, chosen by God to bear His Son.
To some degree, I agree that chaos reigns when there is no unifying authority which determines dogma.
Having said that, with my Missouri synod, Fundamentalist Baptist, Bob Jonesian, Evangelical Presbyterian, definitely non-Catholic, Philip Yancey (and even Tony Campolo)-styled Christianity, whose authority do I follow? Hmmmh?
I really liked Pope John Paul, and I am warming to Benedict, I love Billy Graham, and I like R. C. Sproul, and I think Robertson McQuilkin has it right. And I love reading the Bible (in a good contemporary translation).
Now what do you think I should do?
That should come as no surprise. In translating the New Testament, the KJV translators changed the words of Scripture....
Mal 1:11, prior to the KJV changes, the words in bold appeared. The KJV translators changed them and substituted the words italicesd
For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place sacrifice incense shall be offered unto my name, and a Clean oblation pure offering; for my name shall be great among the Gentiles heathen, saith the Lord of hosts
*It was no big deal to change Scripture to oppose the Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass so what is the big deal about abandoning Tradition?
"What came first the oral teachings of Christ and the apostles or the Bible?"
When I first read your post, I misunderstood, and want to clarify what, upon reflection, I think you're saying. The answer to this question is that the oral teachings of Christ and the apostles (i.e. tradition) came before the writings of the New Testament and their subsequent gathering into the canon. So, you're saying that the Catholic position concerning Mary, which was formalized into doctrine MUCH later (parts of it as late as late 1800's or early 1900's, I believe), were actually beliefs that arose out of very early oral tradition, and are therefore not new, not a change to our faith, but supported by evidence from the earliest days of Christianity. Is that correct?
As for myself, I have a funny, very personal belief about theological controversies-- I believe that if I need to have a defined belief on them, if I need to know the truth, that God will tell me. If He hasn't done that, which He hasn't in this case, then I don't need to know, I don't need to have a position. :) I do believe, however, that He has told some other folks the truth-- I suspect He's told the Catholics, but again, I just don't know for sure. :-D