Protestants, why?

[PRmerger]

Is it Sacred Tradition for bishops to use history & testimony from other churches in order to come to a reasonable conclusion about the authenticity of a text?

I suppose the Holy Spirit uses whatever He Wills to guide the bishops. And I really don’t know what the bishops use to determine the authenticity of a text.

But that prompts the question: how is it that you know that the bishops used “history and testimony from other churches”?

Please cite your source.

(Also, please note that “testimony from other churches” is simply ANOTHER way that you have given a great expository on what is Sacred Tradition.)

 

[GKC]

The Anglican Church, first and foremost, is not the proper name. The* Anglican Communion* is a group of around 40 national churches. It is united by virtue of the fact that each of its members is in unity & communion with the Archbishopric of Canterbury.

For evangelical & reformed Anglicans, our Magisterium is the Apostles, teaching through the divine Scriptures - if you want to put it that way. Each national church has a set of Canons, like the Roman Code of Canon Law, but these are disciplinary and are not considered ‘tradition’ or anything.

Listen to GKC, joe. GKC is wise!

Since the mid-19th century, many Anglicans have taken to believing that Tradition and the Hierarchy have a certain authority to which the average faithful should bow. These people tend to be Anglo-Catholics, or Tractarians, or members of the Oxford movement (all the same thing). They argue that the Church of England as it was reformed in the 1530s-1560s got rid of too much, and has to go back to Medieval standards, at the least.

There are many different opinions from different Anglicans through the years as to whether we are Protestant or Catholic. Anglicans are as split today as Catholic communities are between SSPX, FSSP, Sedevacantists, and other bizarre groups. Some Anglicans have come up with the milquetoast “Middle Way” to describe us, but it doesn’t satisfy me personally.

Yep.

Me, I think of the Elizabethan Compromise as the via media.

38 independent national Churches.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus, *posterus traditus Anglicanus
*

 

[Aefensang]

Firstly, it does not say Scripture “alone” is able to make us wise to salvation. Nor will you find the word “only” there.

Secondly, if you interpret that verse to mean “Scripture Alone” makes us complete, then you ought to apply that same paradigm to James 1:4, which declares that perseverance makes us complete.

My text does not say “alone”, but can it not be implied? If I say “this lamp is able to give me light”, it implies that I have no candles or other sources of light; otherwise, I would have mentioned them. Perhaps the lamp was the thing closest at hand. Regardless, the lamp is the first & primary source of my light, because I mentioned it alone. The Roman Catholic position, if I understand correctly, is that the Church is the lamp, and the Bible is a secondary source of light.

As far as “the word”, Catholics believe that Sacred Tradition* is *“the word”, so that’s a verse that is quite satisfactory to the Catholic paradigm of Scripture and Tradition.

Just as a broad principle, the Lord Jesus never said “by your Scriptures you have made null the word of God”, but “by your traditions, etc.”. Perhaps if He had cautioned against use of the Bible rather than tradition, I would be more willing to accept that Tradition is the word. Since tradition is very unreliable and easy to corrupt if left to hearsay and oral communication (play the Telephone game?), I do not trust it to deliver salvific truth in its entirety. Only writing can do that.

Finally, if you really want to use this argument, then, since the NT was not yet in existence when Jesus spoke these words regarding “Scripture being the only means” (which, of course, Jesus NEVER said “only”), then you’re going to have to proclaim that it’s the Old Testament Scriptures Alone that reveal God’s plan.

Interestingly Paul refers to Luke as Scripture & Peter refers to Paul as Scripture (among others), while quoting the Old testament as Scripture, all in one breath.

I suppose the Holy Spirit uses whatever He Wills to guide the bishops. And I really don’t know what the bishops use to determine the authenticity of a text.

But that prompts the question: how is it that you know that the bishops used “history and testimony from other churches”?

Please cite your source.

(Also, please note that “testimony from other churches” is simply ANOTHER way that you have given a great expository on what is Sacred Tradition.)

I hope you’ll excuse me if I don’t answer posts that end with “” or other cheeky 'gotcha’s. I’m not here to pull out trump-cards on people, and I wish others wouldn’t do that. It’s dreadfully silly.

Let’s say the bishops at Carthage or Hippo (which came up with two different canons, both of which were not the full Tridentine canon) assemble to decide on this. Do you think the Holy Ghost just appeared in front of them and dictated it? Such a thing was never reported. With respect, I think Catholics tend to treat the Councils of the 390s as if they merely affirmed a canon which always existed - but we can find no council or synod prior to the 300s which makes the canon clear. If the Church delivered it whole & entire, how exactly did it do so? What was the mode of operation? I doubt every bishop had the books of the Bible memorised.

If you want testimony from bishops and fathers of the Church, please see this post in a new forum started by Anglicans for all-comers: forums.anglican.net/threads/resource-fathers-on-the-canon-of-divine-scripture.183/ - sourced and cited. There are no lists from the Fathers of the first six centuries, which give the Septuagint/Greek as the Canon. Every one who wrote on the subject lists the Canon of the Masoretic/Hebrew text as “The Scriptures”.

Luke the Evangelist, writing his Gospel, says he made a very thorough study, interviewing witnesses. The divine Spirit inspired him, but He used worldly, human, earthly methods to investigate; He used Luke’s personality and character to establish a method of writing. Why not the same situation with early bishops who “defined” Scripture? They investigated, requested copies from Ephesus, Corinth, etc., and made their conclusions.

Admirable reasoning.

 

[PRmerger]

My text does not say “alone”, but can it not be implied? If I say “this lamp is able to give me light”, it implies that I have no candles or other sources of light;

Interesting.

When I read your comment about the lamp the thought did NOT occur to me,* at all,* that I should conclude that you have no candles or other sources of light!

So thus I would have to object to your suggestion that “alone” can be implied.

The Roman Catholic position, if I understand correctly, is that the Church is the lamp, and the Bible is a secondary source of light.

Firstly, Aefensang, the CC is not Roman. The Roman, or Latin rite, is only one of 23 rites all in union with the Bishop of Rome.

The correct nomenclature is: the Catholic Church.

Secondly, if we were to apply this analogy, what we would say is: the Church proclaims that Light comes from 2 sources: (pick 2 analogs of light), with the True Light being Jesus Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

Just as a broad principle, the Lord Jesus never said “by your Scriptures you have made null the word of God”, but “by your traditions, etc.”.

Exactly.

Traditions of men that are contrary to the Word of God ought to be rejected.

That’s the Catholic position.

Perhaps if He had cautioned against use of the Bible rather than tradition, I would be more willing to accept that Tradition is the word.

You do realize that the Bible is nothing more (and nothing less) than Tradition put to Writ?

Since tradition is very unreliable and easy to corrupt if left to hearsay and oral communication (play the Telephone game?), I do not trust it to deliver salvific truth in its entirety. Only writing can do that.

But yet you have declared here, just a few posts prior, that you accept the bishop’s use of the “testimony of other churches”, which is, of course, a testament to your acknowledgement of Tradition.

Interestingly Paul refers to Luke as Scripture & Peter refers to Paul as Scripture (among others), while quoting the Old testament as Scripture, all in one breath.

And we know that Peter’s encyclicals are Scripture how?

Or even that Peter actually wrote them how?

I hope you’ll excuse me if I don’t answer posts that end with “” or other cheeky 'gotcha’s. I’m not here to pull out trump-cards on people, and I wish others wouldn’t do that. It’s dreadfully silly.

As you wish. I accept that.

However, the icons are not used as “gotchas”. If that were the case they would not be available for our use.

 

[Aefensang]

Interesting.

When I read your comment about the lamp the thought did NOT occur to me,* at all,* that I should conclude that you have no candles or other sources of light!

So thus I would have to object to your suggestion that “alone” can be implied.

Perhaps the thought did not occur to you because you don’t have the mindset in which it might occur. That’s fair enough. For you, the Light of the world first ignited through the Church and that remains the primary conduit for light, yes?

Scripture is the only (adverb form of alone) thing Paul mentions when he mentions things that can make us wise unto salvation. The very wording says “Scripture alone”, even if the term is not there. It’s the same as the Great Commission being proof for the Trinity. The Lord Jesus said “the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost”. No “Trinity”, but there is the Trinity.

Firstly, Aefensang, the CC is not Roman. The Roman, or Latin rite, is only one of 23 rites all in union with the Bishop of Rome.

The correct nomenclature is: the Catholic Church.

Secondly, if we were to apply this analogy, what we would say is: the Church proclaims that Light comes from 2 sources: (pick 2 analogs of light), with the True Light being Jesus Christ.

I am aware of the 23 rites in union with Rome, just as there are 38 national churches in union with Canterbury. It’s the same subject, except the Anglican-communion churches do not attribute so much to Canterbury as the Roman-communion churches do for Rome.

When I use “Roman Church” and “Catholic Church”, you must understand me from an Anglican perspective. It’s the way I’m approaching it after all, given my personality. Rome is not the Catholic Church, in my opinion, but a member of the mystical Body which is the Catholic Church. I do believe Gregorian Reform, Lateran, Renaissance, Tridentine, Enlightenment, and Vatican I theology (i.e. 1000-1871) make Rome the essential component of the Church, the sine qua non, the esse of its existence. Is that correct?

If the Light comes from two sources (Scripture & Tradition), why does Psalm 119 famously say that “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, etc.”? All of God’s written testimonies are His Word, I think.

 

[Aefensang]

You do realize that the Bible is nothing more (and nothing less) than Tradition put to Writ?

If you mean the Scriptures are the Tradition, yes. Tradere means to pass on. The noun for tradition in Greek is paradosis. That which is handed down is the entire text of the Bible. The Bible is the Apostolic Tradition. I believe that’s the radical Protestant claim which so scandalises you guys.

But yet you have declared here, just a few posts prior, that you accept the bishop’s use of the “testimony of other churches”, which is, of course, a testament to your acknowledgement of Tradition.

It is a testament to my acknowledgment of the role of reason & logic in discovering truths about history. The bishops who believed that the letter to the Ephesians was truly by Paul, only would have believed it because the Church at Ephesus had the original or copies of it. Ephesus’ bare word would not have been believed; it was just one local church after all, not a council or a pope.

I have no source for this, but it seems the only common sense possibility. The age of miracles & extraordinary gifts ended quite a long time ago. We’ve had to rely on faith & reason since then, bishops and laity alike.

And we know that Peter’s encyclicals are Scripture how?

Or even that Peter actually wrote them how?

We know because the whole Church of bishops, clergy, and laity accepted them with open arms since time immemorial (re. Vincent of Lérins). That is the tradition which Anglicanism can accept. What it cannot accept, historically and theologically, is the idea that the Bible is a special letter written by the hierarchy for the hierarchy’s interpretation in a sort of private collection. That’s what I generally think of when I think of “Sacred” Tradition.

I am open to being told off as quite wrong.

 

[JustaServant]

We know because the whole Church of bishops, clergy, and laity accepted them with open arms since time immemorial (re. Vincent of Lérins). That is the tradition which Anglicanism can accept. What it cannot accept, historically and theologically, is the idea that the Bible is a special letter written by the hierarchy for the hierarchy’s interpretation in a sort of private collection. That’s what I generally think of when I think of “Sacred” Tradition.

I find it curious that you say that since Anglicans accept many Sacred Traditions with Catholicism.

 

[Porknpie]

Scripture is the only (adverb form of alone) thing Paul mentions when he mentions things that can make us wise unto salvation. The very wording says “Scripture alone”, even if the term is not there.

If the Light comes from two sources (Scripture & Tradition), why does Psalm 119 famously say that “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, etc.”? All of God’s written testimonies are His Word, I think.

Aefenasang -

• are you referring to 2 Timothy 3? If so…
• what they learned and believed came from Paul verbally and the old testament
• “sacred scriptures” is referring to the old testament. The NT did not exist.
• all scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching but the text does not imply scripture alone. You are inserting meaning into the text that does not exist.
• Paul was teaching the Word by his mouth, using the old testament and his letters.

14 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,
15 and that from infancy you have known [the] sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

• this can be seen clearly again in 2 Thessalonians 2:15

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

 

[pablope]

Scripture is the only

 

[pablope]

Just as a broad principle, the Lord Jesus never said “by your Scriptures you have made null the word of God”, but “by your traditions, etc.”.

 

[stewstew03]

'zactly.

And, sadly, they couldn’t proffer any magisterial documents to the contrary, right?

Let’s just say that I decided never to re-join CARM after serving out my suspension.

 

[Aefensang]

Pablope and everyone, I am not able to answer all your questions and to answer everyone else. By the time I reply to you, 4-5 replies to my last post have appeared, making it impossible to keep up. There is no remedy but to post general replies in blocks. I hope you can accept this.

what makes you think the tradition you adhere to is the one that is not corrupted?.

You, however, have given the primary question on which this whole thing stands or falls, so I’ve quoted this one line of yours.

Why I am a Protestant:

I do not know whether “our traditions” are corrupted, but it does not matter to me because they are not the rule of my faith. More to the point, how do you know the Roman tradition is not corrupted? A tradition which says it is infallible cannot be the basis on which its own claim is proved; that’s circular logic. Only objective history can be used to prove this. Your loyalty to your spiritual home is commendable, but I cannot share it yet.

I do not know whether my traditions or yours are corrupted, so I cannot make oral tradition, divorced from written biblical tradition, an absolute rule of saving faith.

We can find ancient Biblical manuscripts and compare them to what is counted as the Bible today. Spoken tradition’s only proof for itself … is unspoken tradition! I find that very untrustworthy, and I think that’s why, in Paul’s famous directive in 2 Thessalonians, he says “keep to the truth handed down, whether by word or by our epistle”. Does Paul’s marriage of the two, combined with warnings against relying too much on traditions of men (elsewhere in the New Testament), not indicate that we should judge the less sure (oral) by what is more sure (written)? Seems perfectly simple and sound to me. Anyway, Paul himself had personally evangelised Thessalonica, so he could not have been appealing to someone else’s oral tradition. His epistle confirms what he had said orally while with them.

The very fact that Chrysostom & other Fathers seem to have vacillated is proof that there is no sacred “unanimous consent of the Fathers” on which to base our doctrinal truth - except their unanimous consent that the Bible alone contains all basic saving truth, some proofs of which, sourced & cited, are available here. Just a sample:

Chrysostom on 2 Thessalonians 1:9-10]
What need is there of a person to discourse? This necessity arises from our
sloth. Wherefore any necessity for a homily? All things are clear and open
that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain.

If you don’t trust me, look it up on NewAdvent, the Catholic resource. I got my quotes from that lovely site. The Fathers are not my infallible tradition, but they cannot be Rome’s either. That’s all I’m saying.

I do believe Trent, in the Creed of Pius IV, anathematizes anyone who understands the scripture in any way contrary to the “unanimous consent”. If this is so, Rome anathematizes itself for contradicting the many Fathers like Chrysostom who did not accept Petrine supremacy. The only conclusion I can make is that there was no unanimous consent, because the Fathers were men.

Honestly, that’s all I have to say. I have answered the O.P.'s question to account for my own conscience. I am not here to convince Roman Catholics, just to give you guys an idea of what stops an evangelical Anglican from being a Roman.

 

[Porknpie]

Let’s just say that I decided never to re-join CARM after serving out my suspension.

I was suspended too and never went back. I asked them if they believed Jesus was a liar. They didn’t like that and they didn’t like my defense of the Eucharist…which involved me asking them if they thought Jesus was a liar. They are very defensive of the Eucharist being a symbol …they don’t have much to stand on by way of scripture or early church fathers or 2000 years of Christianity.

 

[PRmerger]

If the Light comes from two sources (Scripture & Tradition), why does Psalm 119 famously say that “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, etc.”?

I think you need to disabuse yourself of the paradigm that the Word of God, as Catholics see it, is ONLY Scripture.

We proclaim that the Word of God is Jesus Christ Himself, and that he was revealed his Word through 2 channels: Scripture and Tradition.

Thus, you can see that “thy word is a lamp” can (and does!) refer to Scripture AND Tradition.

There is no need to separate the two.

That paradigm of “only” or “alone”, Aefensang, is the beginning of almost all heresies proclaimed through the entirety of Christian history.

Catholicism is the best of ALL because it proclaims:

Not Faith ONLY. But faith AND reason.

Not Faith ONLY. But faith AND works.

Not Jesus as Man ONLY. But sharing divine AND human natures.

Not Scripture ONLY. But both Scripture AND Tradition.

Sometimes it is the ONLY mentality that causes blinders to develop.

(NB: Please do not extrapolate this to mean that there are no “ONLYs” in Catholicism. One that comes to mind is the very Catholic dogma that it is through Christ ONLY that we are saved. Of course, my Catholic brethren here will be able to help proffer some other examples of some ONLYs in Catholicism. But the point remains: creating ONLYs where none are required is a stumbling block that need not exist.)

All of God’s written testimonies are His Word, I think.

Indeed.

I don’t believe any Catholic here has said anything to the contrary?

 

[Aefensang]

I think you need to disabuse yourself of the paradigm that the Word of God, as Catholics see it, is ONLY Scripture.

I know Catholics believe the word of God is spoken through the Scripture, the Sacred Tradition, and the living teaching office called the Magisterium. I learned and struggled with them daily as a Roman Catholic, so the very words are more familiar to me than the air I breathe.

We proclaim that the Word of God is Jesus Christ Himself, and that he was revealed his Word through 2 channels: Scripture and Tradition.

The Word is the Logos. We are called Logikoi, the “Word-like”, for we are in His image. Not only that, but we are the “logic-like”, the “reason-like”, for God is indeed truth itself and wisdom itself, in Whom we have these qualities by reception. The scriptures speak of God’s words in two ways: His written law, and His spoken word that creates and upholds all things. “He spoke, and the waters brought forth creatures, etc.”. I simply don’t see a warrant for believing that infallible human oral tradition is one of the channels.

Of course you may well argue that the events described in the Bible occurred long before they were written; for example the prophet Ahijah in the books of Kings brought the word of the Lord by mouth long before this was written down in those books. I have no answer for you naturally, since I am not long out of Rome and am still learning.

Thus, you can see that “thy word is a lamp” can (and does!) refer to Scripture AND Tradition.

In the context of Psalm 119, the psalmist is speaking about the written law. He calls it God’s word, God’s testimony, God’s law, God’s commandments, and many other things. The Law is something specific - not the traditions of the Talmud, but the written word of the Torah. I think the context suggests written tradition alone.

That paradigm of “only” or “alone”, Aefensang, is the beginning of almost all heresies proclaimed through the entirety of Christian history.

That is an interesting assertion. Gnostics did say Jesus was only spiritual. Arians did say Jesus was only a man. Just because the word “only” is the beginning of most heresies, however, doesn’t mean it’s the beginning of all heresies, as you point out.

Catholicism is the best of ALL because it proclaims:

Not Faith ONLY. But faith AND reason.

Classical Protestantism too.

Not Faith ONLY. But faith AND works.

Our sincere faith and contrite heart pleases God, as Psalm 49 (50) says. Our works in faith save us, as the Lord Jesus said. No conflict.

Not Jesus as Man ONLY. But sharing divine AND human natures.

Of course, here your argument does not hold together 100% of the time: the Lord Jesus is only a divine person, with a human nature assumed at the holy Incarnation. Since you say that “only” formulae mostly lead to heresy, should you conclude that Jesus is not only a divine person but a human person too? Clearly not, as Rome herself denies that.

Thus…

Not Scripture ONLY. But both Scripture AND Tradition.

… this is not necessarily a truism. I’ve heard a Catholic say, once, that since Jesus is human and divine, it only makes sense that we follow both tradition and scripture - it’s most fitting, most mystical, most in keeping with God’s economy of salvation, etc. I might just as well say that we only need divine scripture because Jesus is only a divine person. Sometimes the semantics go on in circles.

Sometimes it is the ONLY mentality that causes blinders to develop.

(NB: But the point remains: creating ONLYs where none are required is a stumbling block that need not exist.)

Your nota bene is considered. I just want to highlight this part: who says the “ONLYs” of Catholicism are not also superfluous? Classical Protestants don’t even follow that whole paradigm in all things. Indeed, “only Scripture contains saving truth”, but Scripture AND tradition teach us some very holy ideals of worship. Scripture AND tradition give us godly norms of living, etc., but only Scripture teaches us the highest things of God without error. That’s our contention.

I don’t believe any Catholic here has said anything to the contrary?

Indeed not, I was just emphasising the simplicity of this subject. We can blow it up into issues about Mary, purgatory, justification, invocation, prayer for the dead, and a million things, but in the end it is simple. The big contrast between Rome and Protestantism is that the former believes Scripture* and the traditions of a certain group of men* are 100% trustworthy in matters of our salvation, whereas the latter believes only Scripture is 100% trustworthy in these matters.

 

[SteveVH]

I believe the Apostolic Tradition is enclosed totally in the divine Scriptures because the divine Scripture itself says that each man can be instructed unto salvation by scripture (re. the famous 2 Timothy 3:15).

Do I have to point out to you that “the famous 2 Timothy 3:15” quote could not have been referring to the New Testament? To use your interpretation then would mean that the New Testament was unnecessary to lead us to salvation. The fact that we can be instructed by scripture does not mean that we cannot be instructed by Sacred Tradition. They are both the word of God.

Just a thought: do you ever think it odd that Luke did not include what Christ said at Emmaus, if it was so important?

So Jesus was just kind of chit-chatting with them as he explained all of the scriptures; nothing of real importance there.

The fact that Luke mentions the event but does not describe what Christ explained to the two disciples, either means that Luke thought it sufficiently clear already in his history/gospel, or he didn’t think it particularly necessary to record.

I have no idea why Luke didn’t describe exactly what Christ explained to the disciples. Maybe he didn’t know. Maybe he was making a point in his Gospel that didn’t require that particular teaching of Christ. The New Testament itself tells us that not everything that Christ said or did is written down; that not even the whole world could contain the books that would be required. One cannot then, simply assume that what Jesus said was of no importance because Luke didn’t write it down. I don’t think he spoke a word that was not of importance.

So, if a Roman Catholic may justly quote Justin Martyr for his Mass, then an Anglican may quote the martyr’s theology of the Eucharist in Chapter 65 of his first Apology, which is decidedly Anglican in its description of the “bread” and “wine” after the prayers have been said over them.

I’m sorry, but you make it sound as if the Anglican Church somehow arrived at its liturgy independent of the Catholic Church.

Well of course the implicit contention of an Anglican is that the Church of Rome makes itself out to be (the essential component of) the Catholic Church, rather than simply a member of it. Are you familiar with Irenaeus of Lyons’ saying “Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church”? Whatever the Church of Rome claims for itself, I personallybelieve it is objectively a member of the Church Universal, and not the seat of its head. That’s the whole contention, isn’t it?

Unfortunately that seems to be the contention, yet a contention with no basis in reality. You seem to forget your history as an Anglican. It began with a divorce. It was not out of some theological difference. You find yourself on this side of history in an ecclesial community that is separated from the original Church as a consequence of the selfish and pridefull acts of a political monarch and now wish to redefine the meaning of the Church.
And yes, I am very familiar with Irenaeus’ saying. How that helps your argument I’m really not sure. As to this “Church Universal”, please tell me, where is the seat of its head if not the Bishop of Rome?

I hope you find strength in the idealistic parts of your heart to take this love seriously, and not roll your eyes at the idea - even if it does sound like an excuse not to debate. I mean to come here in charity. Now, had I not seen certain words by the Fathers, I would have remained a Roman Catholic myself and not been scandalised into doubts about my faith. There’s no use plastering some quotes here incautiously for some other poor soul to get confused and possibly become an atheist at the end of it all. Caution, safety…

When one lets me in on their little secret, that they could basically trash my faith if they desired, but instead are holding off out of love, I seem to be getting a confused message there. We’re all big boys and girls here, and you are on a Catholic forum, so why don’t you give it your best shot; let us in on this devastating information from the ECF’s that will turn us all away from our faith.

 

[PRmerger]

I know Catholics believe the word of God is spoken through the Scripture, the Sacred Tradition, and the living teaching office called the Magisterium. I learned and struggled with them daily as a Roman Catholic, so the very words are more familiar to me than the air I breathe.

So then it’s curious why you would proffer the Psalm as an apologia for Scripture alone.

When you posit this:

[If the Light comes from two sources (Scripture & Tradition), why does Psalm 119 famously say that “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, etc.”?

Catholics respond with a confused, *“So? Of course God’s word is a lamp unto our feet! What in that verse tells you that the word is only Scripture?”
*
[/quote]

 

[PRmerger]

I simply don’t see a warrant for believing that infallible human oral tradition is one of the channels.

Then, as has been queried of you before, why do you accept the infallible declaration of humans regarding the canon of Scripture?

You have already acknowledged (albeit grudgingly) that human beings have been given the charism of infallibility (unless you are willing to declare here on the CAFs that you believe Peter or Paul or Matthew, Mark, Luke, John wrote some sort of error into their text…)

so why is it that you find it so hard to believe that the Church has retained this charism of infallibility? (At least, after it declared the Canon of Scripture.)

 

[PRmerger]

[whereas the latter believes only Scripture is 100% trustworthy in these matters.

And yet you accept that men were 100% trustworthy in discerning the canon of Scripture for you.

Or do you believe that 1 of the books that they rejected (? Shepherd of Hermas?) ought to be considered theopneustos and 1 of the books they accepted (3 John perhaps, which mentions Christ not at all!) should be rejected, thus eliminating the possibility that they were 100% correct?