Foundation

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

There are no verses that say use only the Bible, Sacred Tradition, the Pope, and the Magisterium.

.

Sort of right. . .There absolutely is no one specific passage of Scripture that specifically says “only use the Bible, Sacred Tradition, the Pope, and the Magisterium deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrine.” Yet, an exhaustive and comprehensive look at Scripture offers very strong support for the reliance on Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and an authoritative, teaching Church.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 (“All Scripture is inspired by God. . .”) is, indeed, wonderful support for our Christian reverence and dependence on Scripture as truly authoritative and tangible instruction. But, the Church did not begin with a book, nor do we stop there. . .The Bible is not superior to or separate from Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church. In fact, through Scripture, we learn of the great importance of Tradition: 1 Cor. 1: 1-2, 1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Thess. 2:15, and 2 Thess. 3:6 and of our authoritative, teaching Church: 1 Tim. 3:15. And we have Sacred Scripture precisely because we have a vital and harmonious apostolic Tradition and an authoritative Church.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

So we must look at what we do have. It becomes by a preponderance of the evidence that scripture is superior(I can editoralize, it’s my post)

Who wrote the New Testament?

1. New Testament gospels were written by two of the 12 (Matthew and John), one who relied on Peter (Mark), and Luke.
2. Paul, who Jesus appeared to.
3. Peter, no need to describe him around here.
4. James, the brother of the Lord
5. Jude, the brother of the Lord
6. John also penned some letters and one whale of a book we put at the end.

We know, except for Jude and the author of Hebrews, quite a bit about these men.
We have the very words spoken by Jesus to guide us. Any church should look as close as humanly possible to what he taught. This is God himself in the flesh to teach us.

OKAY. . .I mostly agree, yet you have still to prove by even this recount that Scripture is superior other than by your own opinion and teaching tradition.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

Who said what when it concerns Sacred Tradition?

That list could get very long. Specifically pointed questions would be helpful here. But, for starters:
St. Paul says: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.” (2 Thess. 3:6)
Irenaeus says: “The tradition of the apostles, made clear in all the world, can be seen in every church by those who wish to behold the truth. We can enumerate those who were established by the apostles as bishops in the church, and their successors down to our time. . .” (c. 185 A.D.)

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

Do you have names for where Sacred Tradition originated? When they said it? The context?

You really need names?
You are asking proof of Sacred Tradition that you do not even require of Sacred Scripture. We can no more cite exact “origination” (ie, who said what first) of Sacred Tradition, than we can absolutely, without any doubt cite who authored every word of any given book of the OT an NT. Basically, if a named source is a prerequisite for what qualifies as “truth,” then we’d have to throw out several books of the Bible–including Genesis and Hebrews!

When they said it?
There are certain historical and archeological proofs which give us a good indication of “when” certain aspects of Tradition were already in effect, but we no more have dates for Sacred Tradition than we dates for the events contained in Sacred Scripture. In the absence of vast forensic evidence, we, like the early Church, rely on the witness of trustworthy men (2 Tim. 2:2) which we are fortunate to have through the writings of many 1st and 2nd century Christians.

The context?
The context of Sacred Tradition, in essence, is the same as the context of Old Testament Rabbinic Tradition. There are many aspects of context: historical data, archeological/forensic evidence, cultural practice, etc. Were you asking for something more specific here?

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

Were they three of the 12 like the NT?

Huh? I don’t think I understand your question. Do you mean: Do we have specific human authors of Sacred Tradition that we can name? If that is your question, then, I think you know the answer. . .Of course not. Nor, by the way, are we 100% sure of the authorship of the New Testament. We accept it as true, however, based on the approval of the Church’s teaching authority (councils in union with Rome). The very nature of oral Tradition is that the authorship is not always known, nor is it essential.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

Where are the examples, Thomas said the reason for the Immaculate Conception was _______. Example, John spoke about the Assumption of Mary, she was in his care, based upon what so and so wrote. You have early(that point being very relative, 400 years later only being early when one is inclined to support that view) Christians who very rarely say where this came from. Scripture is a primary source for you historians. What is Sacred Tradition?

Since you are a reader, I’m not going to do all the homework for you. But, if you are sincere in your search for the answer to this specific question, I would suggest you get your hands on Jurgens or any other reputable annotated compilation of the writings of the early Church. Your answer is not hard to find. It does, however, take work. Catholic Answers, too, provides very good documentation of early Church Fathers’ writings—just do a search!

What is Sacred Tradition?

Again, I’m sure you are very capable of finding the Catechetical definition for “Sacred Tradition,” if that is what you are looking for. Tradition is as important a “primary source” as Sacred Scripture is.

The point being that the Church does not value one as superior to the other. And Scripture, itself, does not claim for it the superiority that you do. They are both the Word of God and in their distinctive voices provide the Church with “a lamp to [our] feet and a light to [our] path” (Ps. 119:105). They are harmonious and mutually indispensable. We come to know the truths of Scripture in light of Sacred Tradition and we come to understand Tradition through our adherence to Sacred Scripture.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

So what does the Bible say about scripture and tradition

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The gospels are being written still or are not available for everyone. Any tradition would have to be prior to Paul’s letter. He says nothing about developing tradition. In fact, this is a warning against it!

Hmmm. . .I think you are reading into Scripture what you are already presupposing.

From this passage (and within its full context), we have no indication that the church at Thessalonica was ignorant of the full gospel and therefore only bound by a pre-written gospel tradition.

In fact, in the preceding verse St. Paul encourages the Thessalonians to continue in their calling by virtue of “our preaching the good news” (2 Thess. 2:14). He does not at all infer that they have an incomplete gospel because they are void of the written texts. In fact, he is affirming the authority of tradition in every way by emphasizing the importance of tradition “by word or by letter.” Never does he say, “But once you have a written gospel, you can dismiss tradition.” And never does Scripture say that what is important is only that which is written.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Yes the tradition, because like I just said the gospels were still being written or are not available for everyone, must be directly from the Apostles. Unless it is directly from the Apostles it would be disorderly. Praise God that those who adhere to Sola Scripture alone are following the very words of Jesus and as recorded by two of the men who walked the earth with him and one who learned from the great Apostle Peter.

Once again, you are relying on your own tradition and presupposition that once the evangelists and epistles writers wrote down their intended message that it somehow displaced the need or validity of Tradition.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “directly from the Apostles,” but taking it in the most literal sense: Apostolic tradition does not mean that it is straight from the horse’s mouth. That is, the validity of the gospel message is not contingent on the words being transmitted “directly from the Apostles.” There is sufficient Biblical text that would prove otherwise.

We know that the Apostles themselves were the primary source for the true gospel, however, we also know that they charged others as messengers of that same gospel. Hence, we have Tradition. The Scriptures are part of Tradition.

No where, in Scripture or otherwise, does it specify that once the evangelists write the gospels that the fullness of truth is contained in those four books. Which, incidentally, is why we have the epistles! And to go further, we have no instruction, in Scripture or otherwise, that once the epistles were written that Tradition or the teaching authority of the Church is not longer needed.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Yes, this foreshadows what sadly many would in his name.

I realize that this interpretation in concert with what you have come to believe through your own teaching tradition, but this particular passage does not at all discount the place of Sacred Tradition. Certainly, as Jesus chastises the Pharisees for their scrupulosity, he COULD have been also foreshadowing the inevitable scrupulosity of some in the Church. This is a very viable argument. However, he is in no way condemning tradition in a general sense. This case simply can not be made from this passage, especially in light of the rest of Scripture.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

Remember Protestants understand there was a period of delivery where the teachings had to be done orally. We also recognize that these wonderful men WROTE their words down for others realizing the inferiority of tradition that cannot be traced back to the teachings of Christ himself.

Practically speaking, how do Protestants KNOW when that “period of delivery” was completed? Is that Scriptural?

What indication do you have that “these wonderful men” wrote scripture because they thought that tradition was somehow inferior to the written word? You have yet to provide Scriptural proof (which is your onus) to support this assertion.

I realize that it is the traditional presupposition of Protestantism, but it simply has no Scriptural basis. There is no Scriptural qualification which asserts written word is superior to tradition.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

Many Catholics like to point out the few examples in the NT where sources that were not written in the OT are used. The Bible IS oral tradition, written. There is nothing wrong with oral tradition in and of itself. That is how we got the NT. That is the point. We have it in writing now from the Apostles themselves instead of unnamed sources that Catholicism uses.

Once again, could you please provide the precise and exact “named” sources for all the books of the Bible? That’s rhetorical, of course.

The point being—and I think you are getting close here—that without tradition, we have no Scripture. The very canon of Scripture that we enjoy today is a function of Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church!

The fact that “we have it in writing now” doesn’t discount the imporatance and place of Sacred Tradition. Nor does it mean that, with the Bible “we now have it ALL in writing.”

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

Lastly, let us now clearly show how important scripture was to the Apostles and writers of the NT.

“How many times do the writers of the New Testament quote the Old Testament? An index in the Jewish New Testament catalogs 695 separate quotations from the books of the Old Testament in the New (Jewish New Testament Publications, Jerusalem, 1989). There are many other passages where the Old Testament is referred to, as in cases where an Old Testament figure is mentioned, but no specific scripture is quoted. Depending on which scholar’s work you examine, the number of quotations and references in the New Testament to the Old may be as high as 4,105 (Roger Nicole, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary,”

This perhaps your weakest point.

The argument is not and never has been whether or not the OT Scriptures were “important” to the Apostles and writers of the NT. No question. The OT is indispensable.

But, it is not a matter of numbers. If Jesus, our Lord and Savior himeslf, quoted the OT 1 MILLION times in the NT and only had 2 extra-Scriptural citations, that would still not qualify the written word as superior to the oral tradition. Please do not reduce the import of doctrine the gospel to a numbers game.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

That should get us started. Thanks for reading. I know I did not include the usual NT verses but I do not want to post too much at a time.

Thank you, too, for your time and energy! This is important stuff.

Once again, though, I challenge you to prove from Scripture alone that Scripture ALONE is authoritative in matters of faith.

From your present argument, all I can possibly conclude is that Scripture is an authoritative, primary and reliable source. And I agree entirely! So does the Catholic Church, by the way.

You still have yet to prove that it is the ONLY authoritative, primary, and reliable source beyond your own presuppositions.

Got more?

 

[Fredricks]

I have edited some to condense.

I think the first weakness in your argument is in your very first presupposition that “Protestants” recognize the Bible alone as “the only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrine.” This may be your contention, but it is not the reality. The question, then, arises: If the Bible alone is authoritative, how do you know whose interpretation of it is correct as there are MANY, MANY varying opinions on doctrinal issues such as Baptism, Eucharist, etc.?

The issue is Bible or tradition. Authorative interpretation of scripture is another issue. While a valid question, it is not what we are talking about. We both know we disagree about interpretation and debating that will detract from our basic question. A “whose method is superior” thread is another topic, that while related, detracts.

The reality of the matter is that no “Bible Alone” Christian actually relies on the “Bible Alone.” Inevitably, he relies on Scriptural sources to support his already accepted doctrinal traditions. These traditions may be self-generated based on his own personal experience, study, and sensitivities. These traditions may be acquired from another individual(s)’ teaching. And in some extreme and often indefensible cases, these traditions may even be claimed as a function of some private revelation by the Holy Spirit.

How Protestants interpret scripture, once again, does not directly address which is superior. I believe that is another thread topic.

Now, a little historical perspective is pertinent here.

How did we come to know which books of the Bible were inspired?

With the dozens of epistles and gospel narratives that circulated among the early Church, how did the playing field get narrowed to the 27 books we now accept as the New Testament canon?

Who decided this?

The simple and straightforward, historical answer is: the Church.

We both agree with what guided the decisions of those who put together the canon.
The Holy Spirit.
I cannot not imagine that Catholicism disagrees with this. You do go on to attribute this collection to the “Church”. I know that when you use “Church” you believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church. You never say it however. i have never contended that God did not use early Christians to accomplish his ends. It actually brings to my mind only so many stories from the OT where the Lord used imperfect people to accomplish his means.

The expanded version is: The canon of New Testament Scripture was developed after a long process of debate. The early Church leaders, the episcopacy (the bishops), were ultimately charged with the passing on of sound doctrine (2 Tim. 2:2, Ti. 1:9). It was their responsibility to guide their local churches by preaching and defending the authentic message of Jesus Christ and his apostles. The issue of tradition was of most importance here. The consensus among the bishops could only be reached by comparing and harmonizing each text received according to what they had been “handed on” (Gk. Paredosan) by oral doctrinal tradition.

Are you familiar with the history, not much talked about in Catholicism, that John read the first three and found them lacking and so chose to write his? Anyway, not too much here to disagree with.

 

[Fredricks]

We have numerous 1st and 2nd century writings which indicate the immense weight and importance of oral doctrinal tradition and the authority of the episcopacy in concert with the Roman bishop in the development and acceptance of the New Testament Canon. (I recommend reading Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and yes, Eusebius).

I will bite. I did not want to.
I would like you to quote where Clement, Ignatius, and Iranaeus say the Roman bishop is involved in the “development and acceptance of the New Testament Canon”.
Please.

Yet, for almost 400 years, the Church was essentially void of the modern Biblical text that some insist one must rely on for all doctrinal truth.

Jane this is simply not true. Please prove your historical claim that the Church was essentially void of the modern Biblical text for almost 400 years.

Sort of right. . .There absolutely is no one specific passage of Scripture that specifically says “only use the Bible, Sacred Tradition, the Pope, and the Magisterium deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrine.” Yet, an exhaustive and comprehensive look at Scripture offers very strong support for the reliance on Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and an authoritative, teaching Church.

I think you would be nice to start that thread after this is done.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 (“All Scripture is inspired by God. . .”) is, indeed, wonderful support for our Christian reverence and dependence on Scripture as truly authoritative and tangible instruction

The Catholic Apologist quotes this one first! The first time that has occured in Catholic v. Protestant debates I bet.

.

But, the Church did not begin with a book, nor do we stop there. . .The Bible is not superior to or separate from Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church. In fact, through Scripture, we learn of the great importance of Tradition:

Jane. You just used scripture to prove that tradtion is important. How would you have done that without scripture? How can anyone contend that the two are equal but HAVE to use scripture to prove this?

Reminds me of a story. When I worked on an Indian reservation. I remember a student who was arguing with his Grandmother about whether or not their oral traditions could be written down. He thought yes. She thought no. She thought she had stumped him by bringing out an old history book of the tribe that quoted one of their early Chiefs(I think he was) who said that the teachings should be passed orally and not written down. After her grandson begun laughing she realized the error of her ways.

You really need names?

Why is that unreasonable? Do you usually believe unnamed sources you do not know where it comes from in other circumstances?

You are asking proof of Sacred Tradition that you do not even require of Sacred Scripture. We can no more cite exact “origination” (ie, who said what first) of Sacred Tradition, than we can absolutely, without any doubt cite who authored every word of any given book of the OT an NT. Basically, if a named source is a prerequisite for what qualifies as “truth,” then we’d have to throw out several books of the Bible–including Genesis and Hebrews!

I just realized you might be a lot more liberal than I thought. If you wish to argue against Moses as author of Genesis, that would be another thread. Disappointing Jane.
We do not know who wrote Hebrews but trust the Holy Spirit.

There are certain historical and archeological proofs which give us a good indication of “when” certain aspects of Tradition were already in effect, but we no more have dates for Sacred Tradition than we dates for the events contained in Sacred Scripture

 

[Fredricks]

.
This does not make sense to me. We know that the authors of the gospels wrote about Jesus in a very set historical period of time. If you doubt the historical accuracy of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John(which is supported by the vast majority of early church fathers that you seem to give a lot of credence to), we would probably have to make a thread of that as well. I think our dates, while not months, have been narrowed to certain years.

In the absence of vast forensic evidence, we, like the early Church, rely on the witness of trustworthy men (2 Tim. 2:2) which we are fortunate to have through the writings of many 1st and 2nd century Christians.

I rely on Matthew, who traveled with the Lord, John, who traveled with the Lord, Mark(who learned from Peter), and Luke.

The context?
The context of Sacred Tradition, in essence, is the same as the context of Old Testament Rabbinic Tradition. There are many aspects of context: historical data, archeological/forensic evidence, cultural practice, etc. Were you asking for something more specific here?

I would like to know who said what. It seems reasonable to think the men who traveled with Christ are trustworthy and that much of Sacred Tradition(using your terms for continuity) comes from…?
Who? When?

Huh? I don’t think I understand your question. Do you mean: Do we have specific human authors of Sacred Tradition that we can name? If that is your question, then, I think you know the answer. . .Of course not.

If you wish to trust your eternal salvation with unknown sources, I do not get it. I just don’t.

In the absence of vast forensic evidence, we, like the early Church, rely on the witness of trustworthy men (2 Tim. 2:2) which we are fortunate to have through the writings of many 1st and 2nd century Christians.

I rely on Matthew, who traveled with the Lord, John, who traveled with the Lord, Mark(who learned from Peter), and Luke.

The context?
The context of Sacred Tradition, in essence, is the same as the context of Old Testament Rabbinic Tradition. There are many aspects of context: historical data, archeological/forensic evidence, cultural practice, etc. Were you asking for something more specific here?

I would like to know who said what. It seems reasonable to think the men who traveled with Christ are trustworthy and that much of Sacred Tradition(using your terms for continuity) comes from…?
Who? When?

Huh? I don’t think I understand your question. Do you mean: Do we have specific human authors of Sacred Tradition that we can name? If that is your question, then, I think you know the answer. . .Of course not.

If you wish to trust your eternal salvation with unknown sources, I do not get it. I just don’t.

Nor, by the way, are we 100% sure of the authorship of the New Testament.

The author of Hebrews is unknown but like I said earlier, or attempted to, I believe we do know who wrote these books, and a great deal about them.

Since you are a reader, I’m not going to do all the homework for you. —just do a search!

Already own them.

Tradition is as important a “primary source” as Sacred Scripture is.

Primary sources are written first hand by people that are there. That is what a primary source is. Not to lecture but this is very technical definition.
"Original manuscripts, contemporary records, or documents (speeches, letters, interviews, diaries ) created at the time an event occurred."

The point being that the Church does not value one as superior to the other. And Scripture, itself, does not claim for it the superiority that you do.

used scripture to prove that tradtion is important

 

[Fredricks]

They are both the Word of God

No.

and in their distinctive voices provide the Church with “a lamp to [our] feet and a light to [our] path” (Ps. 119:105).

Amy Grant song as well.

We come to know the truths of Scripture in light of Sacred Tradition and we come to understand Tradition through our adherence to Sacred Scripture.

used scripture to prove that tradtion is important

From this passage (and within its full context), we have no indication that the church at Thessalonica was ignorant of the full gospel and therefore only bound by a pre-written gospel tradition.

If you are contending that the early church had the written gospels in late 40 CE that would contradict what you wrote earlier concerning the date 400 CE

In fact, in the preceding verse St. Paul encourages the Thessalonians to continue in their calling by virtue of “our preaching the good news” (2 Thess. 2:14). He does not at all infer that they have an incomplete gospel because they are void of the written texts. In fact, he is affirming the authority of tradition in every way by emphasizing the importance of tradition “by word or by letter.”

No one is arguing that the early church did not use oral tradition until the gospels were written and distributed.

Never does he say, “But once you have a written gospel, you can dismiss tradition.” And never does Scripture say that what is important is only that which is written.

It does not say that.

Once again, you are relying on your own tradition and presupposition that once the evangelists and epistles writers wrote down their intended message that it somehow displaced the need or validity of Tradition.

That sure is not my tradition but that is another thread.
I have never said I reject all tradition. I have said that written words from the Apostles themselves is more reliable than unnamed sources.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “directly from the Apostles,” but taking it in the most literal sense: Apostolic tradition does not mean that it is straight from the horse’s mouth. That is, the validity of the gospel message is not contingent on the words being transmitted “directly from the Apostles.” There is sufficient Biblical text that would prove otherwise.

I think this more than proves my point. We are relying on the men who knew Jesus. You are relying on men who lived…how many years again after Jesus? Most of the people quoted on this site are writing 70 to 300 years after Jesus lived. Call me crazy for thinking the guys who actually knew him are more reliable.

We know that the Apostles themselves were the primary source for the true gospel,

THANK YOU

however, we also know that they charged others as messengers of that same gospel. Hence, we have Tradition. The Scriptures are part of Tradition.

Do you really think John thought Polycarp more reliable than himself?

I got tired. If you think any of your last points were super important you will bring them up again in the beginning. I poop out!

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

I just realized you might be a lot more liberal than I thought.

That is a first!

I got tired. If you think any of your last points were super important you will bring them up again in the beginning. I poop out!

Really, Fred. Please do not be patronizing. I truly appreciate the time, energy, and thought you have brought to this conversation. In Christian charity and common decency, I hope that you realize the time, energy, thought that I offer as well. I would not have written it, if I didn’t think it was “super important.”

I look forward to responding to your recent posts as soon as you complete your response to my queries and specific points. Your timing is your own, but it would not be prudent to continue this form of dialogue without the proper attention given to already posed questions.

I will respond in kind.

 

[Fredricks]

This perhaps your weakest point.

The argument is not and never has been whether or not the OT Scriptures were “important” to the Apostles and writers of the NT. No question. The OT is indispensable.

But, it is not a matter of numbers. If Jesus, our Lord and Savior himeslf, quoted the OT 1 MILLION times in the NT and only had 2 extra-Scriptural citations, that would still not qualify the written word as superior to the oral tradition. Please do not reduce the import of doctrine the gospel to a numbers game.

I completely disagree. These men are our examples. The fact that do set this example cannot be dismissed as a numbers game.

Once again, could you please provide the precise and exact “named” sources for all the books of the Bible? That’s rhetorical, of course.

The point being—and I think you are getting close here—that without tradition, we have no Scripture. The very canon of Scripture that we enjoy today is a function of Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church!

The fact that “we have it in writing now” doesn’t discount the imporatance and place of Sacred Tradition. Nor does it mean that, with the Bible “we now have it ALL in writing.”

Let me ask an important question, I alluded to it earlier. What is Sacred Tradition? I want a definition please. Where does one find it? How can it be accessed if this was Christs plan?

Practically speaking, how do Protestants KNOW when that “period of delivery” was completed? Is that Scriptural?

What indication do you have that “these wonderful men” wrote scripture because they thought that tradition was somehow inferior to the written word? You have yet to provide Scriptural proof (which is your onus) to support this assertion.

I realize that it is the traditional presupposition of Protestantism, but it simply has no Scriptural basis. There is no Scriptural qualification which asserts written word is superior to tradition.

Your very own history states that John did this.
What does Catholicism contend is the reason they wrote?
I am not going to quote scriptures to support my contention, yet. I believe I am clearly establishing that Catholicism has as much faith in unnamed sources as the men who walked with Jesus. Before I even go to scripture, which Catholic apologists are used to, I will take this time proven method first.
The very fact it is written shows it. Why would they write it in the first place if they thought oral tradition would suffice? Catholic apologists have, in my experience, ALWAYS avoided answering. Please do answer.
I believe that was all your points Fran.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

The issue is Bible or tradition. Authorative interpretation of scripture is another issue. While a valid question, it is not what we are talking about. We both know we disagree about interpretation and debating that will detract from our basic question.

In my response, I was merely adhering to your initial contrast which included the Pope and the Magisterium as part of the Catholic position. As I have explained before, the Church views Scripture and Tradition as two sides of the same coin (God’s Word) and the Pope and the Magisterium as the teaching authority which interprets the two.

If you meant for this conversation to only be an issue of “Bible or tradition,” you should have said so in your original post.

Are you familiar with the history, not much talked about in Catholicism, that John read the first three and found them lacking and so chose to write his?

Interesting diversion. . .Not sure of the relevance here. What “history” are you citing? Are you saying that the synoptic gospels are lacking?

Although, I’m not entirely sure what “history” you are referring to, I am quite aware of the differences in style, content, and chronology in the 3 synoptic gospels versus John’s gospel. This is, by no means, an ignored topic in Catholic Scriptural theology circles. In fact, I just finished a study last spring comparing the 4 gospels as such. There are many hypotheses circulating among Catholic and Protestant scholars which explain these differences. And while many scholars (Catholic and Protestant alike) have made some very good arguments, I am not aware of any position which would postulate your assertion “that John read the first three and found them lacking and so chose to write his.” I would love any proof or research you have in favor of this position. Per your own criteria, could you also please provide the named source for the person who received this information from St. John regarding his intention to make up what is lacking in the works of Matthew, Mark, and Luke?