Apparently extra biblical, oral apostolic tradition doesn't exist anymore

[DustinQuick]

bible.ca/catholic-tradition.htm

When people make claims like this, do they not see the implications and logical conclusions?

Scripture is one conduit or stream in the larger body of apostolic tradition in the life of the church.

Look at the fruit and irony of pitting one of Holy tradition against another. Everyone claims one source but no one can agree on the interpretation, and that’s supposed to be proof of the unity of the body of Christ.

If the bible is against Catholic tradition I find it insane that the bishops who selected books for the Cannon would include books that sharply condemn the very traditions and practices they believed in at the very same time these books were approved! Why would they incriminate themselves and the church so carelessly?

If the real presence, prayers for the dead, the Eucharist, etc are all to be compared with Jesus’ condemnation of the pharisees with their traditions of men - and the protestant reading of anti catholic proof texts is correct - you would think the bishops would have had enough sense to either remove a bunch of books and even verses here and there, seeing that Christians in their own time, and those of later generations, would so easily prove them heretics.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Trying to define “tradition” as it applies to the Roman Catholic Church is not as easy as it may seem.

At least he got *THAT *part right !!!

Tradition, which is held with an equal degree of pious affection as is the Bible by the Roman Catholic Church, is arrived at not by logic and a reasonable consideration of the evidence, but by a constant surging within the Church itself to believe something.

Ya know, he’s right. He just doesn’t understand what he’s saying, and why it’s supposed to be like this.

But, of course, logic and consideration go into defining doctrine. It took the Church centuries of consideration to answer the objections of Aquinas over Immaculate Conception.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thats how the story goes with fallible opinion and admittedly so. From a fallible opinion perspective you can debate the ambiguous meaning of words such as “it” or “you” all day long and at the end of the day theres only fallible opinion.

cuf.org/2004/04/taking-god-at-his-word-a-catholic-understanding-of-biblical-inerrancy/

The Catholic Church has always taught that Sacred Scripture is inerrant. Since all the books of the Bible were composed by human authors who were “inspired” by the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn. 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:15-16), they truly have God as their author, and communicate without error Our Heavenly Father’s saving truth.

And the Catholic Church has always taught those who are inspired by the HS have continued through history. To suggest this isn’t true is to suggest walking in faith inspired by the HS infallibly isn’t true thus Gods infallibly inspired. “the Bible were composed by human authors who were “inspired” by the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn. 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:15-16), they truly have God as their author, and communicate without error Our Heavenly Father’s saving truth.”