The Bible as you all know was formed about 350 years after Jesus.
Not true. Much of the Bible existed before Jesus (i.e., before the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity). All the rest of it was written by the early second century at the latest.
This confusion between the Bible and the canon really hinders Catholic apologetics. It’s a bogus argument that any Protestant should be able to see through, and it weakens what is in fact a pretty strong case.
The Bible is a form of Sacred Tradition,
I would agree, since I define “Sacred Tradition” as “the deposit of the faith.” However, Vatican II’s Dei Verbum seems to be defining Tradition differently, as one means by which that deposit is transmitted to us.
for what is in it was originally taught orally.
Probably most of it was. Not necessarily all of it, but I won’t quibble.
Now Catholics believe Sacred Tradition is also the Word of God.
But if the Bible is a form of Tradition, then the word “also” makes no sense. The question between Protestants and Catholics is whether all of Sacred Tradition was written down in the Bible (which Protestants affirm and some Catholics deny), or whether the historic teaching of the Church is also a divinely authorized and protected means by which the Word of God is delivered to us (which Catholics affirm and some Protestants deny). I have worded it this way to show that the basic affirmations on each side have an area of potential overlap, which is where my own position would fall. (All of the revealed Word of God is found in Scripture, but the “oral” teaching of the Church–i.e., what the Church has solemnly and continuously affirmed to be true and celebrated in the Liturgy–also embodies the Word of God. However, I disagree with the Roman Communion with regard to just how this “oral tradition” should be defined and interpreted.)
Paul illustrated what tradition is: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).
But obviously if Paul’s definition of the Tradition is the one we are following, then Protestants have no problem accepting Tradition. The problem is not whether the teaching is passed down orally or in writing. The problem is with teaching for which we do not find sufficient basis in Scripture (or in other records of the very early Church, such as they are), but which we are asked to accept as dogmatic truth on the authority of the Magisterium or of longstanding (but not truly primitive) tradition. One example would be the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (particularly in partu). I don’t know if this tradition is correct or not. It’s quite ancient–maybe as old as the second century, but not apparently universally accepted until the fourth–but there’s no clear evidence that it dates back to the time of the Apostles, and it is theologically problematic in certain ways (particularly, as I said, the in partu aspect, which seems docetistic). (I am not making an exegetical argument against it, so don’t bother with those defenses.) I am willing to treat it with respect, but I have trouble accepting that it’s a necessary part of the Faith. This is where “sola scriptura” becomes relevant. The PV is not found in Scripture, and thus by Protestant/Anglican standards cannot be more than a respected pious tradition.
Edwin
