Protestants, has the reformation project run its course?

[KateKimmer]

When I was a Protestant, I did think the reformation project had some points in its favor, such as wanting to involve lay people in reading the Scriptures, challenging corruption in the Church, correcting superstition, etc.

However, and I would direct this particularly to members of traditional Protestant denominations such as Anglicans, Lutherans, Prebyterians - it seems to me that this project has run its course, and these goals are now more fulfilled in the Catholic Church than in the reformed ones.

At the same time, these denominations themselves, if you look at their history, succumbed to various kinds of change in the 19th century, which basically meant that their original teachings and direction of travel died out, and was only revived, if you like, by a transfusion from the Catholic Church. The Anglican Church went from puritan origins to being almost Catholic in its liturgy thanks to the Oxford Movement. Even John Wesley returned from the rationalism of the Anglican establishment to an interest in lives of personal holiness, confession, fasting, supernatural intervention, when he founded the Methodist church. The Presbyterians fell into endless divisions (between evangelicals and strict calvinists, between congregationalists and ordained, between unitarian congregationalists and trinitarians, between free presbyterians and organized ones, etc.) and it is hard to find any 5-point calvinists today, with the exception of the Scottish Highlands and the WBC. Most horrifyingly of all, the Lutherans fell into modernism, with 19th century modernist theologians who conceived of God as just an abstraction for the reality of the church serving the people, the volk, which made it all too easy for the German Lutheran Church to become the National Socialist Church of the 1930s. This atrocity might have finished off the Lutherans, were it not for their embracing the more traditional theology of Karl Barth in the latter part of the 20th century. Barth, who has much in common with his Catholic contemporary von Balthassar, encouraged a return to encounter with the supernatural, a return to the kind of supernatural faith which the rationalism of Protestant enlightenment had excluded, but which the Catholic faith had never abandoned.

The mainline Protestant churches of today have an openness to the supernatural, an interest in liturgy, even a rediscovery of the virtues of monastic and contemplative life, which the signatories of the Westminster Confession would have condemned as popish superstition. All of this is positive, and shows that men and women of good will have reappropriated much of the good that was lost in the reformation.

At the same time, from the ‘sola scriptura’ of Luther, contemporary Protestantism has further deviated, building up its own canon of tradition, of ‘right’ ways to read scripture, from the 5 fundamentals of the early 20th century, to historical critical method. At one time, Protestantism produced spiritual writers like John Bunyan, who wrote for the ages, now it produces Rick Warren and Tim LaHaye. At the same time, superstition has crept back into the Protestant churches, whether in the form of the ‘prosperity gospel’ (the more you give, the more you’ll get/ tithe from the salary you want to have), the ‘Toronto blessing’, end-times speculation, or any number of other strange teachings.

At the same time, the Catholic Church has rededicated itself to good catechesis and teaching the faith to lay people, encouraging them to open up the Scriptures, and the wealth of good writings on how to understand it correctly. Our Tradition continues to inspire contemplatives who write for the ages, Thomas Merton or Henri Nouwen, Adriane von Speyr, to name a few. The Church hierarchy has detached itself from political regimes and corruption, the sanctification of the laity is no new invention to Catholicism, but is found in the writings of Pope St Pius X, the lives of St Gianna Molla, Frank Duff, Dorothy Day, again to name only a few. Superstition is challenged and conquered, with the Pope standing up against syncretism in his recent visits to Cuba and Benin, and old devotional traditions that gave only lip service to prayers giving way to renewed interest in contemplative spirituality and active participation in the liturgy.

So, has the reformation project run its course?

You have raised some excellent points and thank you for posting this!
That being said,isn’t it odd that so many catholics, be they conservative or liberal, can not agree on much?

 

[KateKimmer]

I would not want to enter the Roman Catholic Church.

In my own opinion We/I have freedom where it seems it is not so in the RCC and I for one value that freedom very much. Though I do know many many Anglicans like to and feel as though they are as good as any Roman Catholic when it is being Roman Catholic. (Emulating Roman Catholics I mean). But I am silently, proudly Church of England and know what that means and I know what it means being Anglican Church of England and am happy to keep that. NO offence meant here you guys
I am very much aware that not one specific denomination or religion is perfect, but together we can work in unity and bring us all closer to God and can rub along together more than the Devil would like to see.*

No offense, but who founded your church? I believe King Henry the 8th.
The Roman Catholic church was founded by Jesus Christ.
So…enjoy your freedom!

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi Dl82,

These questions which are often asked of Protestants have generally been answered numerous times by Protestant scholars and apologists, google is your friend here.

All I will say for now is it was the Apostles ofc. But my position is the apostolic teaching was recorded in scripture for us, containing everything needed for the salvation of mankind, in a way able to be grasped by all. I’m very glad though too see you are of the position that the canon was virtually closed within a generation of the apostles, rather than this fourth century idea I’m often presented with.

I do take some issue with the word ‘decided’ though, the books of scripture don’t get their authority by someone saying they are scripture, but because they are the word of God. I prefer too think in terms of ‘recognition’. With the earliest Christians simply recognising that Paul wrote such and such and therefore we receive it. (1)

As they are God breathed naturally they are the rule to which teaching is to be tested too. After all canon means ‘rule’.

Again however, we can be discussing this for ages, it’s what they contain which confirms to me my position as a Protestant.

Peace

Lincs.

(1) In Understanding be men, TC Hammond, IVP, 1968, pg 28

 

[DL82]

You have raised some excellent points and thank you for posting this!
That being said,isn’t it odd that so many catholics, be they conservative or liberal, can not agree on much?

That’s what happens when you try to keep 1bn people from all over the world in one organization. It would be pretty scary if we agreed on everything. We know where to go if we want the truth on essentials though.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“the books of scripture don’t get their authority by someone saying they are scripture, but because they are the word of God.”

Oh you mean like this…

Luther’s canon

Martin Luther (1483–1546) made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (echoing the consensus of several Catholics, also labeled Christian Humanists — such as Cardinal Ximenez, Cardinal Cajetan, and Erasmus — and partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola scriptura and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers.

However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day. In addition, Luther moved the books that later became the Deuterocanonicals into a section he called the Apocrypha. [Wikipedia]

Peace

 

[proliferanter]

Hi proliferanter,

I am not in the Roman Catholic Church because of some odd desire to disobey the pope at every turn and because I want to always think what i want and do what I want.

I am not in the Roman Catholic Church as I have a genuine conviction that it has departed in several aspects from what is recorded in Sacred Scripture, this does include the papacy yes, therefore I don’t want to be under it out of a conviction it is an office unheard of in the NT.

I do indeed obey and learn from my elders, they are worthy of my double honour: “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.” 1Timothy 5:17. But even they will still tell me that what they say also must be in alignment with Scripture.

As Protestants we have an authority: Jesus Christ. "And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Matthew 28:18. This authority is exercised through Scripture. The words of God.

Furthermore, as for the rock; well I’m happy to see it as Peters confession of faith in Christ. Or it can be Peter. It does not prove a papacy, but that’s a topic for another thread…

Peace

Lincs.

I don’t think it’s an “intentional” if you will disobedience (“I know he’s in charge and I’m not going to listen!”) it’s more like “he wrong and I’m not going to follow him”. YOU decide what is truth for you, you don’t even really listen to your pastor unless you think he’s right. I was just like you. I used to think “well he’s wrong, I’m right. I interpret scripture correctly he doesn’t”-really that’s why you go to the church you do and why you are protestant. As to your scripture being the final authority there’s a problem with that because you interpret scripture one way and someone else another. Your pastor you claim to listen to listened to another man at his seminary and he in turn comes from what ever founder of denomination or seminary he comes from. It’s a huge chain of fallible personal interpretation.

I listen to the magesterium, who got there views from the church fathers who knew and walked with the apostles not some doctrine that was new or introduced 1500’s-today but 2000 years worth of truth. You believe you are correct over the Pope and you listen to your minister because you agree with him that’s why you chose your specific church/denomination.

 

[GaryTaylor]

We know where to go if we want the “truth” on essentials though.

“Freedom” and “Truth” are the key words which keep ringing aloud. And everyone has a opinion of what they are today.

Peace

 

[Lincoln7]

“the books of scripture don’t get their authority by someone saying they are scripture, but because they are the word of God.”

Oh you mean like this…

Luther’s canon

Martin Luther (1483–1546) made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (echoing the consensus of several Catholics, also labeled Christian Humanists — such as Cardinal Ximenez, Cardinal Cajetan, and Erasmus — and partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola scriptura and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers.

However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day. In addition, Luther moved the books that later became the Deuterocanonicals into a section he called the Apocrypha. [Wikipedia]

Peace

Hi Gary good to talk again!

I know of an excellent blog which deals with these accusations against Luther and has examined these very things. Rather well; Beggars all Reformation and apologetics.

Again though, we can discuss canon on here for ages, I’m perfectly comfortable with my position from a historical point of view.

Peace sir.

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

I don’t think it’s an “intentional” if you will disobedience (“I know he’s in charge and I’m not going to listen!”) it’s more like “he wrong and I’m not going to follow him”. YOU decide what is truth for you, you don’t even really listen to your pastor unless you think he’s right. I was just like you. I used to think “well he’s wrong, I’m right. I interpret scripture correctly he doesn’t”-really that’s why you go to the church you do and why you are protestant. As to your scripture being the final authority there’s a problem with that because you interpret scripture one way and someone else another. Your pastor you claim to listen to listened to another man at his seminary and he in turn comes from what ever founder of denomination or seminary he comes from. It’s a huge chain of fallible personal interpretation.

I listen to the magesterium, who got there views from the church fathers who knew and walked with the apostles not some doctrine that was new or introduced 1500’s-today but 2000 years worth of truth. You believe you are correct over the Pope and you listen to your minister because you agree with him that’s why you chose your specific church/denomination.

Hi proliferanter,

How many passages of scripture has the magisterium infallibly defined?

Peace

Lincs.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hi Gary good to talk again!

I know of an excellent blog which deals with these accusations against Luther and has examined these very things. Rather well; Beggars all Reformation and apologetics.

Again though, we can discuss canon on here for ages, I’m perfectly comfortable with my position from a historical point of view.

Peace sir.

Lincs.

Many here are, no biggie, we “are” the dysfunctional family of Christianity. May the Divine assistance of the Holy Spirit forever remain in us,

We are under order of God to proceed in Love and Charity to complete the unity of the One Holy Apostolic Church which the Lord prayed for to be, and will be as some point when it so please’s Him to be. However, we are also a drop in the bucket of Gods learning program called “time”.

Very much the conundrum which seems to have found itself again in the forefront as of today through the strident clamour of evil worldwide.

Peace

Happy Easter

 

[mitex]

By baggage I mean things that are common in Baptist, and other fundamentalist churches, and rare to non-existent in Episcopal churches. Like “getting saved” sans baptism, and once saved always saved.

Sorry to offend but you must admit the things you espouse are not common for Episcopalians.

Leftist? You or your refferenced site don’t know much about the Orthodox.

Maybe you should read the catchism. esp about baptism and the other sacraments in the Book of Common Prayer?

Andrew your very judgmental. Evangelical Episcopalians don’t even use the BCP anymore really except for communion. Instead of critizing what you do not understand why don’t you mind yourself before you go judging others…

Most Evangelicals have left the Episcopalian Church because they’ve become very much so protestant than Anglican/Catholic.

We are a small minority. But that doesn’t give you the right to go proclaiming how I am some kind of heretic who doesn’t know his own faith. How would you like it if I said those things about you for being Catholic?

 

[proliferanter]

Hi proliferanter,

How many passages of scripture has the magisterium infallibly defined?

Peace

Lincs.

They’ve infallibly canonized scripture. The Pope got his authority from Peter from Christ for the church to understand scripture they go by tradition (you know…

2 Thess. 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from **every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us. **

(yeah that tradition) and this…

2 Thess. 2:15 (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

(that means the stuff the apostles taught that aren’t in the epistles-the stuff the church fathers tell us like mode of baptism, specifics of the Eucharist, etc.

Don’t forget what St. John the apostle said:

John 21:25 But there are also **many other things which Jesus did **which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Sola Scriptura is an unscriptural teaching. And it leads to pride since everyone interprets for himself. There was a church father St. Vincent of Lerins that once said in his Commonitory:

“But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason,—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation. Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally…”

That was in the 434AD…seems sola scriptura is nothing new…

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi proliferanter, thanks for the reply

2 Thess. 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.
(yeah that tradition) and this…
2 Thess. 2:15 (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
(that means the stuff the apostles taught that aren’t in the epistles-the stuff the church fathers tell us like mode of baptism, specifics of the Eucharist, etc.

Firstly, according to this compilation of lists by Catholic apologists: catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/BibleVersesDefinedByChurch.doc , none of these passages have been infallibly defined. Its unclear though which are and are not infallibly defined, it’s either 7 or around 20 something.

But now to actually exegete them; Where does the text indicate that the content of the orally preached tradition is different to that recorded in sacred scripture? The text gives no mention of this. (1). It’s only there if one wants it to be. If one asserts it is, can any be named? You list some related to baptism and eucharistic specifics, but are not these based on scriptural passages? Your interpretation here asserts that these are traditions not recorded in scripture. An objection could be brought here and say that the relationship of scripture and tradition is more flexible than this ‘wedge idea’ above. However I can see plainly the scriptural side, it’s unchanging, the tradition half of later centuries as recorded in the fathers develops, changes and varies according to who said it and when. If one is asserting this verse proves things such as papal infallibility, the immaculate conception etc, then they must be discernible from the earliest post biblical patristic sources(2), are they?

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Firstly; Amen. Does the Catholic Church know of any of them? There is the example in Acts 20:35: “In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.” but I know of none others accepted not in the Gospel accounts. Genuine question here.

As for the St.Vincent quote, one thing to note is he himself does not appeal here to a centralised office in Rome, but instead gives evidence to Catholic interpretation as being decided by a plurality of people, who must take care to stick with what’s been said.
Furthermore, with his possible opposition to the teachings of St. Augustine(3), a theologian now regarded as a true great and accepted as thourghly orthodox, it’s clear there is variety amongst the fathers as regards interpretation. I’m also of the mind as a Protestant that several of my positions are in accord with the fathers, Augustine for example on depravity and original guilt. But in certain areas, they differ from scripture. Those are just some of my musings…

Peace

Lincs
1 - aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3319
2 - aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3319
3 - m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.iii.i.html

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I think we do better dialoguing with her, seeking unity.

Jon

Jon, although I have not interacted with you much there is one thing that I truly admire about your posts, and that is your honesty and your humbleness too.

Like DL82, you bring a very good point.

At this point in history, I think that there is not much to protest about. Now it is mostly about developing a personal relationship with Jesus. At least that’s what I mostly hear and see over blogs on the internet and around the new Christian authors. It felt too self-centered when I was a Protestant. As a raised prodigal Catholic, I always felt uncomfortable whenever I would change churches (too many to admit) to be the “new” guy to be converted and have people come and ask me: “When were you saved” and I would have to go and explain how I was brought up. Amazingly, most people didn’t consider me a Christian!!! At times, I would ask them about what were they protesting about and what did they think the Catholic Church needed to be reformed about.

Not once, I know crazy…, did I hear anyone bring up the issue of Justification. Which was the driving force behind Luther’s beliefs. You know, between Luther’s stubbornness, the OHCAC leadership intransigence, and the other political opportunists at the time made way for the perfect storm in Christianity…

Back to the OP. I think the reformation has run its course against the OHCAC and the OHCAC is still standing. Now the reformation is reforming against itself, actually it did from the beginning!

Now for the most part its coming down to where I feel good at?

And others just feel comfortable in their walk with Jesus and are not protesting at all, they just like where they are and they like all and love all and don’t care about history. I’d love to be in that position! lol.

Sadly, it will take a war (it has already begun) against Christianity to move us away from our comfort zone and realize that we were called to be with one another in His name and not going in different directions away from each other. And in times of war, you can’t have 30,000+ Field Generals, the concept of “divide and conquer” is almost as old as human history. Who is going to lead us here on earth? Who is our Lord going to appoint as our leader? Unless you are reading different Scriptures than I am, I believe He has already given us the answer. The Keys have been passed down, anything else is willful blindness.

In Him.

 

[JonNC]

A quick response, as I have to prepare for our Easter Vigil (I’m an elder helping our pastor).

=Isaiah45_9;9155540]Jon, although I have not interacted with you much there is one thing that I truly admire about your posts, and that is your honesty and your humbleness too.

You are very kind.

Like DL82, you bring a very good point.

At this point in history, I think that there is not much to protest about. Now it is mostly about developing a personal relationship with Jesus. At least that’s what I mostly hear and see over blogs on the internet and around the new Christian authors. To many it felt to self-centered when I was a Protestant. As a raised prodigal Catholic, I always felt uncomfortable whenever I would change churches (too many to admit) to be the “new” guy to be converted and have people come and ask me: “When were you saved” and I would have to go and explain how I was brought up. Amazingly, most people didn’t consider me a Christian!!! At times, I would ask them about what were they protesting about and what did they think the Catholic Church needed to be reformed about.

You wouldn’t have experienced that in a Lutheran parish.

Not once, I know crazy…, did I hear anyone bring up the issue of Justification. Which was the driving force behind Luther’s beliefs. You know, between Luther’s stubbornness, the OHCAC leadership intransigence, and the other political opportunists at the time made way for the perfect storm in Christianity…

Now this you would hear about in a Lutheran parish.
But you are right, Luther clearly states that it is on the dcotrine of justification that the Church stands or falls. My own synod’s stance aside, I believe the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of justification closed the gap to a significant degree on the subject, imputed vs. infused righteousness aside. Enough to the point where I am not so much concerned about soteriology as ecclesiology.

Back to the OP. I think the reformation has run its course against the OHCAC and the OHCAC is still standing. Now the reformation is reforming against itself, actually it did from the beginning!

I would say the church is always in need of reformation. But as a Lutheran, I resist attempts to “reform” the Augsburg Confession, which I consider avery catholic document.

Now for the most part its coming down to where I feel good at?

And others just feel comfortable in their walk with Jesus and are not protesting at all, they just like where they are and they like all and love all and don’t care about history. I’d love to be in that position! lol.

And I believe strongly in Christ’s call for unity as much here in the Church Militant as it is in the Church Triumphant. It is a great danger when we - Catholic and protestant -become comfortable in division.

Sadly, it will take a war (it has already begun) against Christianity to move us away from our comfort zone and realize that we were called to be with one another in His name and not going in different directions away from each other. And in times of war, you can’t have 30,000+ Field Generals, the concept of “divide and conquer” is almost as old as human history. Who is going to lead us here on earth? Who is our Lord going to appoint as our leader? Unless you are reading different Scriptures than I am, I believe He has already given us the answer. The Keys have been passed down, anything else is willful blindness.

You may in many senses be right about this. Witness the words of LCMS President Harrison in front of a congressional committee, flanked by Bishop Lori, standing in opposition to the HHS mandate, using the phrase , “our Catholic friends”.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

I wish I had taped ArchBishop Lori in his recent EWTN interview. Good man who will be sorely missed here. A prophetic voice who see’s the larger picture of Christianity all the time. Father Benedict Groeschel is another and the conversation I refer to happened between the two.

Happy Easter Jon

 

[mitex]

A quick response, as I have to prepare for our Easter Vigil (I’m an elder helping our pastor).

You are very kind.

You wouldn’t have experienced that in a Lutheran parish.

Now this you would hear about in a Lutheran parish.
But you are right, Luther clearly states that it is on the dcotrine of justification that the Church stands or falls. My own synod’s stance aside, I believe the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of justification closed the gap to a significant degree on the subject, imputed vs. infused righteousness aside. Enough to the point where I am not so much concerned about soteriology as ecclesiology.

I would say the church is always in need of reformation. But as a Lutheran, I resist attempts to “reform” the Augsburg Confession, which I consider avery catholic document.

And I believe strongly in Christ’s call for unity as much here in the Church Militant as it is in the Church Triumphant. It is a great danger when we - Catholic and protestant -become comfortable in division.

You may in many senses be right about this. Witness the words of LCMS President Harrison in front of a congressional committee, flanked by Bishop Lori, standing in opposition to the HHS mandate, using the phrase , “our Catholic friends”.

Jon

Are you prepared to have separate and autonomous Churches and ordinates for protestant Churches in order to reconcile with Rome?! Because it will take much more than that than it did to get a few tired Anglicans to rejoin.

Lutherans and Methodists will insist on keeping much of their unique liturgy and confessional history intact in order to be reunited with Rome.

They won’t wake up one day magically adopt Catholic liturgy and worship styles.

And I don’t know how you will get the Presbyterians since their entire Church leadership is based on election.

The Baptists and Evangelicals are out of the question. They hate hierarchies, liturgy, sacraments, and tradition. Each parish is an independent unit that is autonomous and runs itself. Its called congregationalism. You’ve got your work cut out for you.

 

[johnnyjones]

If you are Catholic in communion with the Bishop of Rome, you do well to accept his jurisdiction.

Well, all of us are one body through our baptism.

Jon

I’m not sure where the differing is with your first response.

As to one “body”, it depends on what meaning you are pouring into “body”

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Are you prepared to have separate and autonomous Churches and ordinates for protestant Churches in order to reconcile with Rome?! Because it will take much more than that than it did to get a few tired Anglicans to rejoin.

Lutherans and Methodists will insist on keeping much of their unique liturgy and confessional history intact in order to be reunited with Rome.

They won’t wake up one day magically adopt Catholic liturgy and worship styles.

And I don’t know how you will get the Presbyterians since their entire Church leadership is based on election.

The Baptists and Evangelicals are out of the question. They hate hierarchies, liturgy, sacraments, and tradition. Each parish is an independent unit that is autonomous and runs itself. Its called congregationalism. You’ve got your work cut out for you.

Again you see things in our personal human weakness…

Philippians 4:13

I (We) can do ALL things through (in) CHRIST who strengthens me (us).

In Him.

 

[johnnyjones]

Hi proliferanter, thanks for the reply

Firstly, according to this compilation of lists by Catholic apologists: catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/BibleVersesDefinedByChurch.doc , none of these passages have been infallibly defined. Its unclear though which are and are not infallibly defined, it’s either 7 or around 20 something.

But now to actually exegete them; Where does the text indicate that the content of the orally preached tradition is different to that recorded in sacred scripture? The text gives no mention of this. (1). It’s only there if one wants it to be. If one asserts it is, can any be named? You list some related to baptism and eucharistic specifics, but are not these based on scriptural passages? Your interpretation here asserts that these are traditions not recorded in scripture. An objection could be brought here and say that the relationship of scripture and tradition is more flexible than this ‘wedge idea’ above. However I can see plainly the scriptural side, it’s unchanging, the tradition half of later centuries as recorded in the fathers develops, changes and varies according to who said it and when. If one is asserting this verse proves things such as papal infallibility, the immaculate conception etc, then they must be discernible from the earliest post biblical patristic sources(2), are they?

Firstly; Amen. Does the Catholic Church know of any of them? There is the example in Acts 20:35: “In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.” but I know of none others accepted not in the Gospel accounts. Genuine question here.

As for the St.Vincent quote, one thing to note is he himself does not appeal here to a centralised office in Rome, but instead gives evidence to Catholic interpretation as being decided by a plurality of people, who must take care to stick with what’s been said.
Furthermore, with his possible opposition to the teachings of St. Augustine(3), a theologian now regarded as a true great and accepted as thourghly orthodox, it’s clear there is variety amongst the fathers as regards interpretation. I’m also of the mind as a Protestant that several of my positions are in accord with the fathers, Augustine for example on depravity and original guilt. But in certain areas, they differ from scripture. Those are just some of my musings…

Peace

Lincs
1 - aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3319
2 - aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3319
3 - m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.iii.i.html

The first question is, would it be of God to have his first church wandering in error for 1,500 years ? Even ten years after Jesus death there was no bible. What important interactions and traditions were being followed? Are they irrelevant? All scripture is God breathed but please site a verse that says ONLY scripture is a source of teaching. As well you have been shown the verses that make the act of tradition clear, in the scriptures I might add