|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
RCC Puts Tradition Over Scripture
Lou writes: RESPONSE, part 1 Doctrines Of The Catholic Catechism
Roman Catholicism's standpoint on Bible doctrine is at best equal to tradition and philosophy and at worst subservient to Biblical doctrine. (80) “SACRED TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age.” (Page 31) (82) As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “DOES NOT derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. BOTH SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION MUST BE ACCEPTED AND HONORED WITH EQUAL SENTIMENTS OF DEVOTION AND REVERENCE. (Page 31) Andrew responds: This statement is not clearly written. I doubt you mean to write: "Roman Catholicism's standpoint on Bible doctrine is . . . subservient to Biblical doctrine." Knowing that you are attempting to dispute Catholic claims, you probably mean NOT "subservient". In any case, a strict dichotomy would not properly present the Catholic view. When Catholics speak of the two fonts of revelation, they mean that the Scriptures must be understood within the living tradition from which they emerged under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. When we attempt to understand the bible outside this context, we are compelled to work within another tradition, even if it is unacknowledged. Thus, we can speak of the Protestant tradition or of today's secular culture. This very much affects how the Scriptures are received and how they impact upon our lives. Lou writes: Yes, (thanks for point it out)that initial statement should have read: "Roman Catholicism's standpoint on Bible doctrine is at best equal to tradition and philosophy and at worst not subservient to Biblical doctrine." i.e., catholic "sacred tradition" being ABOVE the Scriptures. The Sriptures themselves declare: 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Also, Scripture states: Isaiah 8:20 - To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. The truths of Scripture are timeless. They apply in all cultures. Throughout all time. The principles laid out in Scripture are not subject to change along with the times or the various cultures of various people. Any teaching that's extra-biblical falls under the realm of the "traditions of men", this includes any teaching, whether it be catholic "sacred tradition" or any other doctrine that is contrary to the Bible. When that extra-Biblical "tradition" or "sacred tradition", teachings which are not in harmony with Scripture takes precedence over and above holy Scripture, then it becomes sin. Andrew responds: Yes, the saving truths of Scripture are timeless. Yes, as 2 Timothy 3:16 states, Scripture is inspired and edifying for instruction and correction. Those elements of teaching deemed essential to the Christian kerygma are indeed present in Scripture. However, there are lesser elements of discipline that can be altered or abrogated entirely. The traditions of men, cannot as you assert, be placed on the same level as that which has come down to us from the living Word of God. However, the oral tradition that was the source for the Scriptures, has come down through history with the written. Sacred tradition is not simply the customs of men but in its source, an integral element of revelation. You failed to take to heart that "extra-biblical" does NOT mean opposed to the biblical. Lou writes: While Church tradition if followed by all would elminate all the varying, disagreeing confusion resulting from multidenominationalism, that by no means provides the child of God any protection against false doctrine. For although the current multitudinous christian sects is proof positive that the Holy Spirit is NOT guiding among this religious babylon of confusion,(for they all claim to be right and this is impossible)by default that doesn't mean that Roman Catholicism is guided by the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures teach us to: 1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Scripture DOES NOT tell us to just accept the doctrines laid out in church councils. The child of God is not to be shackled to the dictates of the church's magisterium. The Holy Spirit is given to EVERY child of God, not just to the popes and bishops to the exclusion of everyone else. Under the guidance of the Spirit, there would be no "fickle human opinions" in matters of truth. Andrew responds: Actually, the concept of sacred tradition in itself would not necessarily rule out "multi-denominationalism". As evidence, there are various divisions in the ancient churches of the East and the split between the (Catholic) West and the Orthodox churches. The issue of unity rests heavily with the interpretive authority. The East leans heavily upon the early ecumenical councils, although reformation churches and Catholicism have influenced their theology in some places. The Catholic Church, as you mention, places confidence in the Magisterium (the pope and those bishops who teach in union with him throughout the world). Church councils began as opportunities for Christ's shepherds to assemble for purposes of unanimity on Scriptural and doctrinal interpretation. They trusted that the Holy Spirit would guide the leadership of the Church on important matters, particularly since individuals had led people astray. Are you an Arian, believing that Jesus was merely a creature and not God? A Church council defended his divinity. Are you in league with Nestorius, splitting Jesus into two sons, one human and the other divine? A Church council defended his unity as both man and God. Councils served and will continue to serve their purposes in the Church. You reject both Church councils and the Church's teaching office. Can you not see that such a move simply isolates you from the fullness of the Gospel of Life? Your contention that the Holy Spirit grants the gift of infallibility to every "child of God" is a misnomer. You are confusing the various charisms proper to people with different roles in the Church. You have condemned yourself as only one more small voice in the "religious Babylon of confusion" uttering "fickle human opinions" as truth. Turning to 1 John 4, it refers to deception in spiritual circumstances and that they might be tested in reference to true Christian teaching. The Catholic Christian is informed by a faith that has lived and reflected upon the Good News of Christ for two thousand years. Christian formation in the Church and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit allows Catholics to know the freedom of the truth and to speak with one voice. The passage in question was in regard to those who rejected Jesus in the flesh. The Christian in the Church has a greater power of discernment than the world that so often accepts false prophets. Lou writes: "Sacred Tradition" is not in harmony with the Scriptures. It fails the test of Isaiah 8:20. Andrew responds: This quick retort that sacred tradition fails the test of Isaiah 8:20 is merely your opinion. It is interesting that you turn to a somewhat obscure text: "To the teaching and to the testimony! Surely for this word which they speak there is no dawn." Actually, all that the Catholic Church teaches as true points to that bright new day of Easter and the kingdom of God. If seen in regard to the verses that precede, it would seem that a contrast is being made between accepting the revelation given them and the violation of the true God's prerogatives in seeking out mediums and fortunetellers. The Catholic Church also condemns such superstition. Seeking conversation with the dead through a medium is strictly prohibited as a serious sin. The use of fortunetellers violates our trust in divine providence. Verse twenty is telling us that "this document" from Isaiah [dissimilar from the prophetic voice under this name in Isaiah chapters 40-45 (Deutero-Isaiah) and Isaiah 56-66] will furnish proper and trustworthy instruction. Some editions move verses 21 and 22 to 14:25: "I will break the Assyrian in my land and trample him on my mountains; he shall pass through it hard-pressed and hungry, and in his hunger he shall become enraged, and curse his king and his gods. HE SHALL LOOK UPWARD, BUT THERE SHALL BE STRICT DARKNESS WITHOUT ANY DAWN; He shall gaze at the earth, but there shall be distress and darkness, with the light blacked out by its clouds. Then his yoke shall be removed from them, and his burden from their shoulder." All other gods will be proven wanting and false. The true God will be revealed. Lou writes: Unfortunately, "Sacred Tradition" does NOT agree with Holy Scriptures. Therefore, "sacred tradition" is not applicable to the Christian and should be emphatically and totally abandoned. The Word of God declares the following: Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the TRADITION OF MEN, after the RUDIMENTS OF THE WORLD, and not after Christ. 1 Peter 1:18-19 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by TRADITION from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. Andrew responds: The contention that Sacred Tradition should "be emphatically and totally abandoned" creates all sorts of quandaries. Church tradition protects us from interpreting Scripture according to fickle human opinion and according to the mindset of secular culture and/or of one inherently hostile to the Gospel. Many Protestant sects still interpret the bible according to a late 19th century American mentality. Messages about the eminent end of the world were popular, as well as those that divinized the American experiment. The Social Gospel framework was operative in the 1920's and 1930's. The 1960's inflicted us with the "God is Dead" movement. Even Catholics, when they abandon the safe haven of tradition, fall into peril-- as with liberation and feminist theologies. Translations and the testimony of ministers and others also constitute tradition. The utter rejection of tradition (as a concept) would rule out all books except the bible, and here it would probably have to be in the original languages. Further, churches would have to be discarded because they too by necessity quickly form customs and traditional ways of acting, thinking, and speaking. Indeed, besides listing various Scripture verses, explanation and dialogue would be eradicated-- including those of anti-Catholic polemicists. Let us look at the Scriptures you cite: Colossians 2:8 - Note that it refers to HUMAN TRADITION, which is an entirely different animal from SACRED TRADITION. The latter is viewed as a divinely protected element of the Church's life that insures the faithful transmission of the truths of faith. Note that at the time of this passage, there is no complete New Testament. The contrast is not against Scripture but against the oral tradition of the Church. False teachers promoting pagan elemental powers have threatened the community. The apostle is urging the believers to remain faithful to the preaching of the Gospel given them. Only in Jesus Christ can they come to God, the Father. Regarding the traditions of the Jews, like circumcision and dietary practices, these have been superceded by baptism in Christ. It is through our Lord, and not merely through a rugged asceticism that they find forgiveness for their sins and a share in eternal life. 1 Peter 1:18-19 - It is interesting, as a sideline, that one recent translation from the sources renders this passage as a single sentence from verse 17 to 19: "Now if you invoke as Father him who JUDGES IMPARTIALLY ACCORDING TO EACH ONE'S WORKS, conduct yourselves with reverence during the time of your sojourning, realizing that you were ransomed from your futile conduct, handed on by your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold but with the precious blood of Christ as of a spotless unblemished lamb" (NAB). Catholics also believe that the JEWISH LAW will not save the Christian. Further, even fidelity to the commandments and the precepts of the Church will not rescue a Catholic/Christian if he does not truly keep faith in Christ with love in his heart for God and man. The external bows to the internal disposition and our encounter with the Lord. It is for this reason that Jesus responded so strongly and violently to hypocrisy. The tradition of the Church can be understood on many levels. There are elements fashioned by the Church (certain disciplines) but most importantly there are doctrinal and moral ingredients that emerge immediately from the Scriptures and the presence of the Holy Spirit in the assembly of faith. The universal catechism speaks regarding our ransom from sin and death by Christ in quite eloquent terms: CCC #517, 602, 622. Scriptures that support the Catholic claim are as follows: Tradition Supplements the Scriptures-- John 20:30-31: Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. John 21:25: But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. On one hand the Church is told that the Holy Spirit will teach the Church all things, and yet there is the admission in Scripture itself that it does not include everything. The early Church practices and extends its faith with only a partially written account of Christ's life and teachings. The living tradition of the Church does not replace the biblical testimony, but supplements and helps to interpret it. Commanded to Keep Traditions-- 2 Thessalonians 2:15: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. 2 Timothy 2:2: . . . and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. If these statements did not appear in the bible, I would suspect that "bible alone" believers would immediately pounce upon them as distortions of the truth by Catholics. Most ministers actually avoid such passages, perhaps with the hope that if ignored, they might go away? The Catholic Church is the most literal bible Church of all in that she makes the entirety of Scripture her own. We keep alive the faith and traditions which come down to us from the Apostolic Church. Lou writes: John 20:30-31 and John 21:25 is not giving license to SUPPLEMENT Scripture with tradition. It's merely stating the fact that there were many other things that Jesus did that were not written and were so quite voluminous that the "world itself could not contain the books that would be written." Everything that the christian needs to be a fully equipped christian is to be found in Scripture 2Timothy 3:16. Therefore, it's an erroneous assumption of power taken on by Roman Catholicism in their teaching that Scripture is to be supplemented by tradition. Does Roman Catholicism attempt to discern the words and acts of Jesus that were not written? I don't believe so. And if such a claim were made, why should it be believed? So, Scripture does not make the admission that it does not include EVERYTHING needed to fully equip the christian. On the contrary, Scripture declares just the opposite! Andrew responds: The Catholic faith also teaches that saving truth can be found in the Scriptures. Tradition does more than supplement, it provides the living matrix from out of which we know and live our faith. You yourself, no matter how erroneous, by your form of worship and commentary on the Internet, are fabricating your own aura of tradition. Those who see things the way you do may buy into your tradition. Those who object to certain elements will break away and begin their own grouping of believers. The fragmentation of Christianity continues in just such an ill-begotten process. What I said before regarding John 20:30-31 and John 21:25 still holds: "On one hand the Church is told that the Holy Spirit will teach the Church all things, and yet there is the admission in Scripture itself that it does not include everything. The early Church practices and extends its faith with only a partially written account of Christ's life and teachings. The living tradition of the Church does not replace the biblical testimony, but supplements and helps to interpret it." As soon as the Good News was composed and a canon established, the Church did not throw away its oral traditions and Church customs. They were too precious for such foolishness. The latecomer churches promote such an idea because it upsets them that Catholics traced their history to the apostles. The true Church preceded the composition and compilation of the New Testament. Anti-Catholic critics will bend over backward to dispute the Church's ancient inheritance; but it is too no avail. The so-called extra-biblical material is ancient, profuse, and supportive of Catholic claims. You write: "Does Roman Catholicism attempt to discern the words and acts of Jesus that were not written? I don't believe so." Actually, there have been many pious attempts to penetrate the heart and mind of Jesus in a meditative way. Thomas a Kempis' THE IMITATION OF CHRIST is one such work that comes immediately to mind. Lou writes: There's no need for anyone to run from those Scriptures. If they were to prove catholicism's point, then so be it. It just so happens that they do not. 2Thessalonians 2:15 is not commanding christians to keep traditions that are not biblical. 2 Thess 2:15 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.(KJV) The teachings are by their WORD or by their WRITINGS. They agree with eachother. They agree with Scripture. There's nothing in any of the apostles teachings that were in any way, shape, or form contrary to Scripture. They all pass the Isaiah 8:20 test. The "sacred tradition" of Roman Catholicism does not. The second Scripture cited: 2Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. Again, none of these teachings are contrary to Scripture. God has given no license to the church to teach ANYTHING other than what was given and taught by Jesus Christ and none of the teachings of the apostles are in any way contrary to the Scriptures. But catholicism is! Andrew responds: The Catholic Church teaches the same saving faith as that which was preached by the apostles and for which the martyrs shed their blood. Alas, the Scriptures do support Catholicism's claim. Your disqualification of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 simply places YOU above the Scriptures instead of one who would be their servant. It always amazes me how anti-Catholics can explain away the bible when it does not fit in with their preconceived notions. Your use of logic runs backwards-- proposing that since you reject Catholic traditions-- they must in no way be found supported by Scripture. Nevertheless, many HONEST Protestant ministers have found their way into the Catholic Church by way of bible study. Others at least admit that Catholic claims are not absolutely non-biblical. Your failure to make distinctions regarding tradition makes your contentions quite simplistic. The problem is that just as in the early Church, the Scriptures require a definitive teaching authority if we are to avoid dispute. The fragmentation of Christianity by men and women of good will and faith is important in this regard. Many Catholics and Protestants love Christ and pursue holiness. However, Protestants disagree with each other and both with Catholics on important religious teachings. Why would the Holy Spirit allow sincere believers to possess contradictory opinions unless the proper gift of infallibility belonged to the shepherds of the Church and not to each isolated member? Either there is a legitimate teaching authority in the Church or most religious people are misled and not filled with the Spirit. The latter view is that of the cults, seeing themselves as the small elect in a sea of blasphemy and perversity. Such is the negative religion promoted by Nicholas and to which you lend the much needed intellectual support. Let me give you a quick elementary review of Tradition and Scripture. There is much to be admired and learned from the present-day emphasis on a return to the Scriptures. However, what Catholics must be cautious about is how the Scriptures are studied and interpreted. Many fundamentalists would have us base our faith solely upon the bible. This sounds fair and good, but an immediate dilemma arises. Who speaks authoritatively upon the Scriptures when there is dispute? How can Christians see the Church simply arising from the Scriptures when it was the early Church herself, inspired by the Spirit of God, that formulated these writings and set the canon in the fourth century? Many attempt to use the bible against us today, not realizing that it is especially our book. One famous evangelizer, the late Fr. Illig, joked that it was a shame the Catholic Church failed to get a copyright on her book. In a humorous way, this speaks to the fact that the community, to which inspired revelation was given and collected, ought to take full claim of their book and use it with confidence and authority. Unlike churches which have existed for a short time, and here I mean a handful of decades or a few centuries, the Catholic Church's long tradition wherein the Spirit of God has nurtured and guided us, cannot and must not be overlooked. Those who speak against Tradition, ironically, after only a couple years, begin to refer to their own history, even if only in regards to the practices and remarks of the last pastor. The Lord gives us his Word and breathes life into it. This is why the Catholic Church is dynamic and alive. This is why Tradition and Scripture must be placed side by side in the Catholic analysis. It is important to note, and Catholic scholars concur, that while every teaching might not necessarily be explicit in Scripture-- nothing the Church professes can be counter to the Gospel. Where there seems to be a discrepancy, there is simply some confusion as to what the Church actually teaches. It is in this light that the Church clarifies her deposit of faith and thus develops her doctrine in the movement of history, a saving history into which the Lord has decisively entered. Revelation was entrusted to the Apostles who were commissioned to hand it on to all generations. A. By means of oral preaching and ordinances (Tradition): 1. From the mouth of Christ; 2. From a living association with him; 3. From his actions; and 4. From what they learned under the prompting of the Holy Spirit. B. The commission of Christ was fulfilled when the Apostles (and other Apostolic men), under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, committed the saving message to writing (Scripture): 1. Apostolic Tradition found in the bible, some which had be abrogated or abolished; 2. Ecclesiastical Traditions which existed then and should not be abandoned; and 3. Dogmatic Traditions pertaining to the essential deposit of faith and morals not clearly found in Scripture. Traditions, according to the Council of Trent, included customs, liturgical ceremonies, church practices, and prayer devotions. God's holy Word found substance in the life of the Church and in the manifold ways that Christians lived out their discipleship. Cardinal Ratzinger discerned four levels of appreciation in the concept of Tradition in the Tridentine definition: (Revelation & Tradition, pp. 65-66) 1. The inscription of Gospel revelation, not merely in the bible, but in human hearts; 2. The perpetual speaking of the Holy Spirit to the Church; 3. The activity of Church councils; and 4. The liturgical tradition and that of the Church's life. The Second Vatican Council saw Tradition in terms of a process, under the Holy Spirit's guidance, by which the Church developed a maturing insight into the Revelation which had been given once and for all. ". . . the Church in her teaching, like, and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes" (Dei Verbum, 8). Vatican II explained that Scripture and Tradition together constituted the supreme rule of faith. At every Mass we exclaim that Scripture is the Word of God. The role of Tradition is to explain and to preserve God's Word, making the Scriptures more accessible and widely known. The labor of preserving the Word of God (in all its purity) falls upon the shoulders of both the bishops and the laity. However, the authentic interpretation of God's Word is a function reserved to the Teaching Office or Magisterium of the Church (the bishops in union with the Holy See, the Pope). We may need to be aware of the various literary forms in Scripture to truly appreciate the meaning of a particular piece. The Hebrews often used exaggeration, myths, plays on words, hymns, poetry, speeches, etc. to describe the things of God. Sometimes these forms become clouded in English translation. Also, we must ask ourselves what the particular meaning of a passage us-- what is it trying to say? A good commentary can be quite useful in this regard. The many facets of Christ's teaching, to illustrate Scriptural complexity, takes four Gospels, a selection of other works, and a number of letters. Each of these sources presents its own particular theology to effectively bring us the Good News of Christ-- the message of salvation. Lou writes:
Andrew responds: The reference to "rudiments" is not in reference to the customs of pagan society but rather touches upon the sin of false gods. These elemental powers were seen by many as having influence over human history and were viewed as deities in their own right. They may have been associated with the natural elements: earth, air, fire and water. There is another citation about them in Galatians 4:3. Here is a case in point where one, separated from living tradition, makes a basic misinterpretation of a biblical text. The Church has maintained the Gospel, protected by an aura of living tradition. Lou writes: You say: "The reference to "rudiments" is not in reference to the customs of pagan society but rather touches upon the sin of false gods." The customs of pagan society were reflective upon the sin of their worship of false gods. And gradually, over time, catholicism incorporated these "rudiments" into the "living tradition" of their church. Instead of the church converting the world to Christ, the church was converted to the paganistic customs and took them into the church's bosom and labeled it "sacred tradition". Unfortunately, Roman Catholicism has not maintained the purity of the Gospel of Christ. Their "sacred tradition" would be in agreement with Scripture, if they were. Why is this not so?? Andrew responds: Yes, the customs of pagan society were often reflective of their pagan religions and false gods. However, the point about the "rudiments" was that it was a direct reference to elemental forces or deities (like FIRE and WATER). I was merely correcting your private interpretation. You are still making the same error in this response to my response. Does the Holy Spirit protect errors you make in biblical interpretation, too? If you can be wrong about small factual matters, then how can we trust your argument about any of the rest? I base my testimony on the teaching Spirit-filled Church. Your own foundation is in yourself (as spirit-filled?) and maybe in Nicholas. You assert again and again an opposition between tradition and Scripture that does NOT exist. The thesis offered by Adolf Harnack that Christianity was Hellinized does not comply with the mind and experience of the Church. It was not so much that the Church was paganized, but that the Catholic Church appropriated the elements of the societies in which she found herself and reformulated them for an emerging Christian culture. This noble process on inculturation is still going on today. It allows people full access to the spiritual treasury of Christianity. Lou writes: Many Roman Catholics are not aware of the unBiblical heresies propagated by catholicism. Oftentimes, doctrines are taken at face value and never questioned. This applies to members of all denominations. Knowledge is necessary in order to make an intelligent choice. Knowledge provides the key, power, and freedom to exercise our God-given right to choose. It is with this purpose in mind that the presentation of the teachings of the catholic catechism and scripture are given. Not to force a certain creed, (for that is antichristian) but rather to disseminate knowledge and to provide encouragement to facilitate research to determine "if these things are so." Andrew responds: The reference to "knowledge" here reminds me of the special gnosis of the earliest dissenters to true Christianity. Truth is not relative and separated from the teaching authority and tradition instituted by Christ. Living tradition is the matrix from out of which we receive the Scriptures and live out our discipleship. As for the creeds, they were precisely to insure an orthodox appreciation of the Word of God. Knowledge of the truth is not limited to the individual but to the teaching, preaching, and ministering Church of Christ. We find baptismal professions of faith (creeds) in the New Testament and early Church. They are succinct formulations of what WE believe. If the role of one is simply "to provide encouragement to facilitate research" then all one might present to others is the sources and maybe questions. However, every statement you make (with accompanying supports and citations) admits to authority and a tradition (no matter how flawed and short-lived). While we are called to come to an appreciation of the truth to the best that our faculties allow; Catholics leave room for the host of witnesses and legitimate authority in the Church. Lou writes: The only authority that I adhere to is the authority of the Scriptures. I do not trust my salvation to the catholic magisterium. They are not infallible. Scripture themselves declare that they are sufficient to fully equip the christian in his/her walk with Jesus. Not 50%, not even 99.9%; but fully 100% sufficient to fully equip the christian. How can you improve on that? Jesus commanded that we all preach Him, and His Words, not to add to His insufficiency (which you claim the Bible admits, by not including all the acts of Jesus)with the Roman church's infallibility. To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20. Andrew responds: You can say all that you want that the Scriptures are the only authority to which you adhere; however, it is not true. If you use the KJV translation then you subscribe, even indirectly, with the authorities of the Anglican Church that translated and made that version of the bible available. Other translations also imply scholars and imprimaturs from various or certain confessions. You also acknowledge and seek out the counsel of like-minded believers. The opinions you share, no matter how erroneous, represent a quality of authority and a new tradition. You are also a secular citizen and thus fall under the authority of a certain state. There are also other authorities in your life, including family, these too have an effect, even if indirect, upon your faith response to the Good News. You subscribe to a sola-Scriptura view, but more, to an individualistic approach to biblical interpretation. You hold, despite the fragmentation of non-Catholic denominations, that the bible is self-interpretive. History shows this view has no weight whatsoever-- that is unless you are going to assert that Christianity had to be reinvented and that most all other believers are lost and not spirit-filled. Nicholas embraces such a belief. I am not sure there is enough room in his religion for two. You repudiate the Scriptures I offer with little more than human opinion. Finally, you measure Catholic sacred tradition by Isaiah 8:20, a text taken out of context and that you do not understand. Peace!
|