For those who say the Bible is "sufficient" for salvation

[Krocker]

Because Paul said so in 2 thess 2:15

also because the church lived by sacred Tradition for 3over 350 years before the Bible was canonized.

The first book of the NT wasn’t written until the late 40s ad which means they needed to live by Tradition before it was written, and even then no one had a copy of it except Paul.

The letters of the NT did not come together to be studied until 197 ad

what did every do before then? The went by the sacred Tradition of the One Church.

It took the Sacred Tradition of the Church to canonize the book they wrote(NT) and to canonize the OT of which there were 5 canons previous to 382.

The Church was long before the Bible was.

If you knew your history, I would not need to point these things out to you.

I’ve addressed all of this above. It may not be to your liking, but it’s been addressed. I know this is a long thread, and I don’t care to make it longer by restating what I’ve already said. And, just for your information, I know my history. I just don’t give it the RCC spin that you do. My consistent and ignored point of verifiability has nothing to do with religion. It is simply how old writings are verified – any old writing. That is history without spin, you just don’t care to hear it. If you knew your untainted history, I would not need to point these things out to you

 

[Krocker]

Sorry to get into the deep discussion here but I’m a little tired of accusations that the Church is so perfect. The Church is Holy and Apostolic and Universal - many cultures are included.
Holy - Jesus started the Church and promised something very clear - Holy Spirit will make sure that the Church will not be overcome.
Apostolic - If the Apostles didn’t get it right in the presence of Jesus, why do we expect that perfection from anybody after them? Did He pick wrong people on purpose or did they make wrong choices as we continue making?
Many cultures, experiences, expectation need to learn the will of God in various forms but UNITED. The Apostles were always united even when they had differences, tempers, emotional answers. We are not humble enough to place ourselves over the 2000 years of heroes before us. Just like the Apostles with their weakness and victories we need to take the same journey of growth - the Church is in the hands of people that are trying to become saints and hear that “welcome, well done, good job … you fed me when I was hungry, you visited me in prison, you clothed me…”

Absolutely. We have differences, but stand united in what matters. I’d point you to my post on this earlier, but it’s probably 100 or so above. The arrogance of both Protestants and Catholics is damaging and it needs to stop.

 

[angelusm]

One of the opposing comments by Protestants against Catholics’ Sacred Tradition I hear is that the Bible is sufficient for salvation and no other revelation is needed. But what I don’t understand is why there is not a campaign on the part of such persons to eliminate those things in Scripture which are not necessary for salvation in the same sense.

For instance, the Bible attests to angels, but a Bible-believing Christian would have to acknowledge that whether or not a person believes in angels, as long as he believes that Christ died for our sins, he can be saved. No?

My point is: If the goal is to discard that which is considered unnecessary, then why not go all the way?

Protestants don’t understand or don’t want to understand one thing, there was indeed one PUBLIC revelation, and there won’t be any other, but there were, are and probably will be PRIVATE revelations. Protestants reject so many divine messages and interventions because they misunderstand God’s will. Just like they misunderstand so many other issues.

 

[paarsurrey]

there was indeed one PUBLIC revelation, and there won’t be any other.

Hi

I don’t agree with you.

There are 32000plus Christian denominations, so there is need that God should make a public revelation so that they could unite on truth. Without revelation it is not happening, Christiainity is splitting into more denominations day by day; if there are efforts these are moving at snail’s pace as if they are not interested in uniting.

Nobody could stop God from speaking publicly or privately, when guidance is needed, it would be provided. If one is hungry; who would feed? God the Providence

Thanks

 

[Krocker]

Protestants don’t understand or don’t want to understand one thing, there was indeed one PUBLIC revelation, and there won’t be any other, but there were, are and probably will be PRIVATE revelations. Protestants reject so many divine messages and interventions because they misunderstand God’s will. Just like they misunderstand so many other issues.

You’re right – protestants don’t understand a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean your understanding is right. That’s the rub. And as far as Protestants rejecting “PRIVATE revelations,” do you mean that only Catholics can have “private” revelations? Could Luther have had a “private” revelation? Did Joseph Smith (Mormonism, if you don’t know) have a “private” revelation? Was the Jesus tortilla a “private” revelation? This is my whole point. You don’t know, I don’t know, nobody knows – except maybe the person to whom the revelation was made. It’s better to rely on what can be and has been proved unlike anything else in history – the Bible (regardless of how it was compiled – we’ve already been there).

 

[justinthemartyr]

But this doesn’t answer my question. Why do you give the Immaculate Conception, a tradition-based doctrine, the same weight as the Bible? It cannot be verified historically to the same extent.

Neither can the canon of scripture, which is a Tradition based doctrine, but God was able to do it through His One Church. I think you misunderstand the difference between Sacred Tradition and tradition.

You think that the pre-preparation(immaculate conception) of Mary to conceive and bring forth the Son of God and the Son of man is such a difficult thing to believe? Wow, then you must have a real problem with God raining down “what is it” on time for forty years straight, except on the sabbath, to feed His people in the desert. And then if you find that difficult to believe, you must REALLY find the fact that Christ gives us His actual glorified Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist, which is the perfect fulfillment of the OT wonder of the manna. The OT Signs and wonders are fulfilled much more perfectly in the NT. This is why the preprepared ark of the OT covenant which no man could touch adn which held the three types of Christ within it, was perfectly fulfilled in the NT type, who is Mary, which held the actual Jesus.
The early fathers of the Church believed in the immaculate conception as did the majority of the reformers.

What, were the great doctors and theologians of the church all wrong and you and the minority coming along almost 2000 years later right?

 

[Krocker]

Neither can the canon of scripture, which is a Tradition based doctrine, but God was able to do it through His One Church. I think you misunderstand the difference between Sacred Tradition and tradition.

You think that the pre-preparation(immaculate conception) of Mary to conceive and bring forth the Son of God and the Son of man is such a difficult thing to believe? Wow, then you must have a real problem with God raining down “what is it” on time for forty years straight, except on the sabbath, to feed His people in the desert. And then if you find that difficult to believe, you must REALLY find the fact that Christ gives us His actual glorified Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist, which is the perfect fulfillment of the OT wonder of the manna. The OT Signs and wonders are fulfilled much more perfectly in the NT. This is why the preprepared ark of the OT covenant which no man could touch adn which held the three types of Christ within it, was perfectly fulfilled in the NT type, who is Mary, which held the actual Jesus.
The early fathers of the Church believed in the immaculate conception as did the majority of the reformers.

What, were the great doctors and theologians of the church all wrong and you and the minority coming along almost 2000 years later right?

You still haven’t answered the question. It’s a very simple one, and any historian would easily and quickly tell you the answer.

You’re simply evading the answer with reliance upon general notions of “faith.” That’s fine. If you solely rely on your “faith” (i.e., what the Catholic Church tells you), that’s okay. Just know what your basis is and that it cannot be supported with historical accuracy. And the next time a Protestant says, “well my faith tells me I’m right and you’re wrong,” just nod your head in agreement.

 

[Krocker]

What, were the great doctors and theologians of the church all wrong and you and the minority coming along almost 2000 years later right?

That’s a silly comparison. The great doctors of the age thought there were four elements – earth, wind, fire, and water, not a periodic table; and that the earth was the center of the universe, and had no clue what chromosomes were, and did not have DNA tests, and did not have blood alcohol tests. And if you had polio, good luck. And if you had leprecy, goodbye leg. So, if you’re relying upon the knowledge of the “great doctors” of the dark ages and earlier, the answer is YES, we are absolutely more right now than they were then.

 

[Rightlydivide]

.

The early fathers of the Church believed in the immaculate conception as did the majority of the reformers.

 

[AquinasT]

I know I am jumping in rather late in this thread, and I may not be able to check back on this forum regularly to continue in this discussion, but I thought I might add my own two cents worth for consideration…
The debate here seems to boil down to “Scripture and Tradition vs. Scripture Alone” And as usual I think both sides tend to oversimplify the other’s beliefs. As a Catholic I would like to speak about the Catholic position to clarify it as I see it.
Protestants usually characterize Catholics as “adding” Tradition to Scripture. As though these two things are totally unrelated and have nothing in common. Or that Tradition somehow conflicts with Scripture or contradicts it. But the opposite is true. Tradition is inextricably linked to Scripture and the two come down to us as one body of Revelation. They logically fit together.
As an example of this I would use Mary’s Immaculate Conception, (which has been mentioned here earlier) and I hope to show that this “Tradition” is derived directly from our understanding of Scripture (and not in contrast to it)…
We begin by examining some points from the Bible:
Scripture tells us that humanity is in a fallen state - separated from God and in need of His grace if we are to be redeemed. From our first parents we inherit the stain of “original sin” which means that from the moment of our conception we are spiritually cut off from God and we cannot do anything on our own to fix this.
But God chose to redeem humanity by sending His Son – Who is God Himself – and God the Son became a human like us, and He died on the cross for our salvation. Now, He is like us in all but SIN. Jesus was not “cut off” from God. Jesus IS God and did not have the stain of original sin. He was in a state of perfect grace in His relationship to the Father. And thus He was able to make a “perfect sacrifice” of Himself to God.
So Jesus was spared from original sin. This we know from Scripture. But as we have seen, Scripture also tells us that we inherit our fallen state from our parents, who inherited it from their parents, and so on, back to Adam. How was Jesus spared this inheritance from Mary? If He acquired His human nature from Mary, then why did He not receive “original sin” from Mary? How did Jesus become a perfect, “un-fallen” man?
There are two possible scenarios. 1) Jesus was spared by an act of God in which God saved Jesus at the moment of HIS conception so that He would be in the fullness of Grace and in perfect relationship to the Father; or 2) MARY was spared by an act of God in which God saved MARY at the moment of HER conception so that SHE would be in the fullness of Grace and in perfect relationship to the Father, and therefore her offspring would be NATURALLY Grace-filled and in no need of salvation.
Obviously option (1) must be discarded. It would mean that Jesus needed salvation from God before He could save us. How could the GOD-man need salvation? But option (2) provides a logical answer. Mary required salvation (just as we all do). And she was saved by an act of God’s Grace (as we all are). Her salvation prepared the way for Jesus so that HE inherited a perfect human nature through natural means and not because He Himself needed salvation.
So the Immaculate Conception of Mary (that is, she was conceived without original sin) is logically connected to our understanding of Scripture. It explains how two Scriptural teachings can be true at the same time – (1) all humans inherit original sin from their parents (2) Jesus did not inherit original sin. And it avoids the possibility that Jesus Himself needed to be saved.
Now all of this took time to articulate through the centuries. It is not necessarily stated in so many words in Scripture or by some of the early Christians. But upon reflection it becomes evident from Scripture that it makes sense as a right understanding of God’s Word. (i.e. Doctrine develops.) And so it is with other Catholic beliefs (the Immaculate Conception is only one example) all of which are usually rejected by Protestants as “additions” when really they are logical conclusions that are Scripturally based.
Thomas

 

[Krocker]

. . . From our first parents we inherit the stain of “original sin” which means that from the moment of our conception we are spiritually cut off from God and we cannot do anything on our own to fix this.
But God chose to redeem humanity by sending His Son – Who is God Himself – and God the Son became a human like us, and He died on the cross for our salvation. Now, He is like us in all but SIN. Jesus was not “cut off” from God. Jesus IS God and did not have the stain of original sin. He was in a state of perfect grace in His relationship to the Father. And thus He was able to make a “perfect sacrifice” of Himself to God.
So Jesus was spared from original sin. This we know from Scripture. But as we have seen, Scripture also tells us that we inherit our fallen state from our parents, who inherited it from their parents, and so on, back to Adam. How was Jesus spared this inheritance from Mary? If He acquired His human nature from Mary, then why did He not receive “original sin” from Mary? How did Jesus become a perfect, “un-fallen” man?
There are two possible scenarios. 1) Jesus was spared by an act of God in which God saved Jesus at the moment of HIS conception so that He would be in the fullness of Grace and in perfect relationship to the Father; or 2) MARY was spared by an act of God in which God saved MARY at the moment of HER conception so that SHE would be in the fullness of Grace and in perfect relationship to the Father, and therefore her offspring would be NATURALLY Grace-filled and in no need of salvation.
Obviously option (1) must be discarded. It would mean that Jesus needed salvation from God before He could save us. How could the GOD-man need salvation? But option (2) provides a logical answer. Mary required salvation (just as we all do). And she was saved by an act of God’s Grace (as we all are). Her salvation prepared the way for Jesus so that HE inherited a perfect human nature through natural means and not because He Himself needed salvation.
So the Immaculate Conception of Mary (that is, she was conceived without original sin) is logically connected to our understanding of Scripture. It explains how two Scriptural teachings can be true at the same time – (1) all humans inherit original sin from their parents (2) Jesus did not inherit original sin. And it avoids the possibility that Jesus Himself needed to be saved.
Now all of this took time to articulate through the centuries. It is not necessarily stated in so many words in Scripture or by some of the early Christians. But upon reflection it becomes evident from Scripture that it makes sense as a right understanding of God’s Word. (i.e. Doctrine develops.) And so it is with other Catholic beliefs (the Immaculate Conception is only one example) all of which are usually rejected by Protestants as “additions” when really they are logical conclusions that are Scripturally based.
Thomas

A good explanation, but it also assumes that, if Mary had original sin, Jesus would naturally be subjected to original sin-- or in other words, Jesus would have been Mary’s son just like I am the son of my mother and so forth, inheriting the traits and sinfulness of our parents. Jesus was born from Mary, but was not Mary’s. I discussed this a while back, but it’s basic chromosomal biology. Jesus is a man, with XY chromosomes, the Y inherited from the male donor. Mary cannot provide the Y chromosome, as a female with XX chromosomes. The only way Jesus is born of Mary is if God “put him in there” regardless of Mary, not because of Mary. So, if the Miracle is Jesus being “put in” Mary, why wouldn’t God just put Jesus in there without original sin, instead of taking it back to Mary, when doing the latter is unnecessary to perfect the miracle?

The answer is, there is no logical explanation for Mary “having” to be without original sin. Your theory is plausible, but only if God chose to create one extra unnecessary step. Maybe He did, maybe He didn’t. The fact is, it cannot be proven either way. My point all along has been – it cannot be proven extrinsically or empirically, and if anything, I believe the rationalization I provided is more reasonable – yet the Catholic church calls the doctrine “infallible,” equal to scripture, and will excommunicate if you don’t believe it and calls me a failure at seeking the “full” truth.

The Catholic Church should call the doctrine what it is – “our interpretation of what happened without evidentiary support, for which none can be obtained.” Nevertheless, the Catholic Church calls the doctrine infallible and rejects anyone else who doesn’t believe this factually unsubstantiated claim. The only way this can be true is if the Catholic Church has the only direct hotline to God – an entirely faith-based conclusion and one which is shared by Mormon’s, cults, etc.

 

[AquinasT]

This “X and Y chromosome” explanation is not found in Scripture. I have not found a book of the Bible or even a single passage that describes genetics or how it applies to the Incarnation. So your interpretation is drawing from a source other than Scripture (i.e. the field of genetic biology) and coupling that with Scriptural exegesis to arrive at your conclusion. Isn’t that what you accuse Catholics of doing - using a source other than Scripture Alone to arrive at doctrine? Why is your choice of sources better than ours?
The fact is I would not dispute your claim that Jesus’ conception was miraculous. However, if God used Mary’s body to make one of her “X” chromosomes into a “Y” (which mostly differs by the amount of genetic material) thus producing a male child then it still remains a point of fact that it was Mary’s BODY that was the source material for this miracle. God used Mary’s human genes to produce Jesus’ body. The miraculous nature of that conception is not in dispute. Of course it would require a transformation of an “X” into a “Y”. But the main argument here is concerning the state of grace in which we find Mary’s human nature. Did God use a fallen nature and save Jesus at conception. Or did He grant Mary a singular Grace of being unstained by sin.
In other words, God did indeed cause Jesus to be conceived miraculously and that would include His genetic male identity. But in so doing did God also “save” Jesus from the inherent “fallen” nature that His mother possessed OR did God save Mary FIRST so that Jesus was not in need of salvation.
Thomas

 

[Krocker]

This “X and Y chromosome” explanation is not found in Scripture. I have not found a book of the Bible or even a single passage that describes genetics or how it applies to the Incarnation. So your interpretation is drawing from a source other than Scripture (i.e. the field of genetic biology) and coupling that with Scriptural exegesis to arrive at your conclusion. Isn’t that what you accuse Catholics of doing - using a source other than Scripture Alone to arrive at doctrine? Why is your choice of sources better than ours?
The fact is I would not dispute your claim that Jesus’ conception was miraculous. However, if God used Mary’s body to make one of her “X” chromosomes into a “Y” (which mostly differs by the amount of genetic material) thus producing a male child then it still remains a point of fact that it was Mary’s BODY that was the source material for this miracle. God used Mary’s human genes to produce Jesus’ body. The miraculous nature of that conception is not in dispute. Of course it would require a transformation of an “X” into a “Y”. But the main argument here is concerning the state of grace in which we find Mary’s human nature. Did God use a fallen nature and save Jesus at conception. Or did He grant Mary a singular Grace of being unstained by sin.
In other words, God did indeed cause Jesus to be conceived miraculously and that would include His genetic male identity. But in so doing did God also “save” Jesus from the inherent “fallen” nature that His mother possessed OR did God save Mary FIRST so that Jesus was not in need of salvation.
Thomas

Nope, I’m not saying that. I don’t ascribe to sola scriptura, but prima scriptura. Start with scripture – which says, at very best, very tenuous things about IC. Then go elsewhere to help you clarify, which, in this case is happens to be by very basic biological facts. So, no, it’s not improper for me to look at genetics to determine whether the IC is doctrinally sound. Moreover, I don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception so, frankly, it’s not my burden of proof – it’s yours, or anyone else arguing that the IC is doctrine.

You’re right about one thing though, and it hasn’t been brought up yet, but the Y chromosome is viewed by some as almost a genetic mutant of the X chromosome – i.e., the X chromosome didn’t fully develop. (Go ahead and laugh ladies). So, arguably, Jesus would have been “less than” Mary, at least genetically, if Jesus was created solely but incompletely from Mary’s genetic material. I think you’d have a hard time selling this concept to many Christians, if any, as this would make Mary genetically superior to Jesus.

But I’m totally in agreement with you on the your last paragraph, as it is essentially the same question I posed. One of two things could have happened: (1) God “inserted” Jesus into Mary, Jesus was genetically unrelated to Mary, and Jesus had no original sin, or (2) God “inserted” Jesus into Mary, Jesus was genetically related to Mary (i.e., God only inserted the Y chromosome, or Jesus was a genetic mutant from Mary), but retained sinlessness because God also made Mary sinless, and Jesus had no original sin. Now which is it? And by what proof do you know that it is (2) with such certainty that the doctrine is “infallible”?

 

[AquinasT]

You seem to suggest that to be “male” (to have a “Y” chromosome) is to be a mutant. That is false. No geneticist would claim that. You also imply that to be male is to be less of a human than to be female (because there is less genetic material???). That is also false. Biologists would never claim this. You also say that Jesus was not “genetically” born from Mary. That would mean that God made Jesus’ DNA distinct from Mary’s. Then he is not truly human. Humans are made from the genetic material of their parents - that is part of the process of human life. Since Jesus had only one earthly parent then His material came from Mary alone (of course through the process of a miracle). If it did not come from Mary then whose genetic material did He have? You have described a genetically mutated monster that is not really human and is not supported by the science which you claim to uphold. You have described what appears to be a foreign parasite infesting Mary’s womb rather than the genuine offspring of a human parent.
And all of this avoids the most important issue - no matter where Jesus’ genetic material came from, did God have to “fix” the fallen human nature in Jesus (in other words, SAVE Jesus in His humanity) so that Jesus would be spared from original sin? Or as Catholics propose, did Mary posses (through God’s abundant Grace) a sinless nature that she naturally passed on to Jesus as His human parent?
The Catholic position keeps the HUMANITY of Jesus’ birth intact but also shows that Jesus was not in need of His own salvation since his humanity came from a woman who had been miraculously saved herself. MARY needed salvation - NOT Jesus. You theory fails to address this point. You keep talking around it, but never answer it.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

*The Apostles Creed is not a Catholic creed, it is a Christian creed. Read it and tell me how it differs from Protestantism. I find it funny that you think you’ve really backed me into a corner when I’ve responded to your question three times now. And if you re-read the posts, you’ll find that you’re putting words in my mouth. I understand that it’s much easier to argue when you make up both sides of the argument, but it makes you look silly. My point from the beginning is that verifiable is more reliable than unverifiable or less verifiable. It’s a simple premise really. *

The Creed was created BY Catholics, for Catholics. You might want to check out the timeline on it’s creation.

I agree with you that more verifiable is better than less verifiable.

My point was that you proposed that we (Christians) should concentrate on “the essentials” and none of this “other stuff”, such as various traditional things, should matter.

My contention is that the only “list” of essentials is the full deposit of faith in the Catholic Church, and that your undefined and undefinable list of “essentials” is an invention of protestants which they can never produce.

Therefore, you can simply and easily enlighten me and prove your point by showing me what “essentials” means according to your “church”.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

The easy and obvious answer is that much of the Catholic “Truth” is unsupported. For example, I have seen absolutely zero “truth” for the Immaculate Conception, except for Catholics telling me it’s “truth”. If you believe you’re the only one’s getting divine revelation, that’s fine — arrogant and unsupported, but fine. I can live with that.

Since you definitionally deny Catholic authority in this matter it’s not really surprising that you’d see our proclaiming it as arrogant, as well as unsupported because you eliminate any legitimate support of revelation to only “the bible” and your own traditions.

So, since we share the bible (sort of) it comes down to “battling traditions”.

Why are yours more believable than ours?

 

[Krocker]

Humans are made from the genetic material of their parents - that is part of the process of human life. Since Jesus had only one earthly parent . . . QUOTE]

You’re kidding right? I can’t believe I’m even saying this, but you do know that to be human, as we know it, you have to have a mother AND a father right? So under either scenario: (a) God created Jesus from Mary’s genetic material alone, or (b) God inserted Jesus into Mary genetically unrelated, Jesus was not “human” as we know it. The miracle of Jesus’ human nature is just that, a miracle. A “genuine offspring of a human parent,” as you describe is not the Son of God born of a virgin birth. There is no “genuine offspring” from a single parent absent a miracle.

If God could just make Mary sinless from the time of her birth (a human born of two parents), don’t you think God could make Jesus sinless as well? You’ve got the right concept, you’re just choosing to apply it to Mary, rather than directly to Jesus.

And I’m not sure why you’re not grasping this, but it does seem you’re thoroughly confused. God didn’t have to “fix” Jesus’ original sin. Jesus had no original sin … regardless of whether Mary did or not. Jesus is God. I think we can agree on that.

Read my posts. All bases are covered. I’m not ignoring anything.

 

[Krocker]

The Creed was created BY Catholics, for Catholics. You might want to check out the timeline on it’s creation.

I agree with you that more verifiable is better than less verifiable.

My point was that you proposed that we (Christians) should concentrate on “the essentials” and none of this “other stuff”, such as various traditional things, should matter.

My contention is that the only “list” of essentials is the full deposit of faith in the Catholic Church, and that your undefined and undefinable list of “essentials” is an invention of protestants which they can never produce.

Therefore, you can simply and easily enlighten me and prove your point by showing me what “essentials” means according to your “church”.

I’ll enlighten you one point at a time . How does the Immaculate Conception help me attain salvation? Can I attain salvation if I believe Mary had sin, but Jesus didn’t?

Also, this is unrelated, but are you agreeing that the Bible is more verifiable than other tradition-based Catholic traditions? I’m wondering if somebody has finally answered my question.

 

[Krocker]

Since you definitionally deny Catholic authority in this matter it’s not really surprising that you’d see our proclaiming it as arrogant, as well as unsupported because you eliminate any legitimate support of revelation to only “the bible” and your own traditions.

So, since we share the bible (sort of) it comes down to “battling traditions”.

Why are yours more believable than ours?

Great question. They aren’t. But I’m not the one claiming infallibility … you are. So the burden of proof is naturally on you to prove your beliefs, rather than for me to disprove your beliefs. If you cannot prove with absolute certainty that your interpretation is right or someone else’s interpretation is wrong, and you’re okay with not having all the answers, then welcome to protestantism.

 

[AquinasT]

Our position is more verifiable historically because it is in line with a Traditional view of Scripture that can be traced back to the Apostles.
The Bible was compiled and given to us through a lengthy process that took centuries. And that process did not happen in a vacuum. Along with the cannon of Scripture we received a view of Scripture (an interpretation - a TRADITION of interpretation) that “grew up” with the cannon.
If Scripture is infallible (and Catholics certainly believe it to be) then our understanding - our INTERPRETATION, our Traditional view of Scripture and the doctrines contained therein and drawn from it - must be accurate and infallible as well. Tradition is infallible if it is Tradition that comes to us from the Apostles and it is partnered with Scripture to enlighten us as to God’s Word.
Thank you for you responses… I must go now. I may not be back for some time. If any other Catholics wish to take up where I left off you are more than welcome.
Thomas