Replies

I don't take any offense. No worries. We just need to remember that, as Christians, we have more in common than we have differences. Please don't take it personally if I debate with some passion and vigor, and I will pay you the same respect.

The Bible warns about following the traditions of men.

That's true. However, what does that -- "traditions of men" -- mean? The traditions of men are those traditions which are profane and opposed to the sacred tradition. The verse is not saying that we should avoid all traditions -- only those traditions of men that are profane. As Catholics, we hold that sacred tradition, as opposed to the traditions of men, include to the canon of the Bible, all that is contained in the Scriptures, and the infallible teachings of the Magesterium of the Church, under the strick conditions for establishing infallibility. The canon of the Bible is established based on tradition. Those who reject the sacred tradition, who ex-communicate themselves from the Church, form in opposite to the sacred tradition, a tradition of men.

So, a Catholic, we take it to be Luther, for example, who is part of a tradition of men who, in opposition to the Church, has established a tradition outside the bounds of sacred tradition. And therefore, his tradition of men does not have the teaching authority to reject the deuterocanonicals. The teaching authority is excludie the the sacred tradition with the one, holy and apostolic church established by Christ and maintained through apostolic succession -- the Catholic Church.

No offense intended, but the Reformers really weren’t concerned about “violating the Church’ sacred tradition.” They were more concerned about Scripture and winning souls for Christ.

But here is the rub, kingpins10. Catholics are very concerned with Scripture -- in fact, we are so concerned with Scripture because the authority of Scripture rests on the establishment of an infallible canon, and the infallibility of the canon rests upon the infallibility of the sacred tradition of the Magisterium which establishes that canon. When a tradition of men, such as the Reformed churches, establish a separate canon, and reject any infallible teaching authority as the basis for the canon, we have a problem. The implication is that there simply would be no infallible teaching authority to establish the canon -- which means that the current canon has its authority simply based upon tradition and is subject to violation and change by any new tradition of man that comes along and decides to change. Latter Day Saints, for example.

If we wish to preserve the infallibility of the canon, then it's necessary to also preserve the infallibility of sacred tradition. One depends upon the other, and vice versa.