Thessalonian said:
No, I answered the question quite clearly. You did not grasp it. First of all I have not said that the scriptures do not in some fashion speak of all that is to be carried on in tradition. Thus the or that you think should be some sort of an issue is not. The problem is twofold. Men speak at different levels of abstraction. My wife tells me to go to the store and get milk. I have a certain amount of inherent understanding of what that means. Traditions of a sort that tell me that I can use the car, what roads to take, how to get gas in the car if it is needed, what store to go to etc. etc. I have an interprutation of those words and it will match her words because we have a common understanding of what she means by "go to the store and get milk". There is a tradition that goes along with that. I could in fact write a book about the many facets involved in "go to the store and get milk" complete from how to get to the store, instructions on maintenance and operation of a car, the use of money, etc. etc. But it is not neccessary that it all be written down. And of course when my son gets his license he will understand what "go to the store and get milk" means in the context of our family. There is an understanding that goes with the phrase that makes it explict even at some level down to what store to go to and how to get there.
Good day, Thess
I am sorry, but you have not answered the questio. Weather you drove, walked or took a cab to get the milk there is historically proof as to how you got the milk. You have provied no proof that Paul taught the church at Thess. any thing out side of what is in Scripture.
Scripture is the same. The passages carry with them some level of understanding. They are not all at the same level of detail regarding what they are trying to convey. The full understanding of them comes in the form of sacred oral tradition. Scripture is not explicit in every detail by any means. We are told in Luke 24 that Jesus showed the two men on the way to Emaus everything about him that was recorded in scripture. Well that would be the Old Testament since the New Testament writings had not been written yet. So tell me, where does it speak of his three days in the tomb? It does.
I agree with Augustine as to the plainess of Scripture with reguards to the thing of the "faith".
For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)
Scripture and oral teaching go hand in hand and I can find implicitly, every single Catholic teaching in scripture. Now can you show me explicitly where scripture says that everything Paul taught would be explicitly written down?
Oral Tradition is about understandings of scripture. The two go hand in hand. One does not have the Word of God, even though he has the Bible, if he does not have a correct understanding of a certain passage. It's not difficult to understand this. His wrong understanding will not contribute anything to his salvation or sanctification. In fact it will neccessarily detract from it.
Blessings.
First to implictly find all RCC doctrine is scripture is to show the need of such implication with in the text. Historiclly the view of your denomination has been, that the need of correctly handling Scripture is secondary in proclaiming it's own doctrine.
Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid: . . the dogma being defined here is Peter’s primacy and authority over the Church  not a formal exegesis of Matthew 16. The passages from Matthew 16 and John 21 are given as reasons for defining the doctrine, but they are not themselves the subject of the definition. As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. It’s always possible that while the doctrine defined is indeed infallible, some of the proofs adduced for it end up being incorrect. Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999), p. 254.
Catholic Encyclopedia: (a) Defined Texts.â€â€The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. The number of these texts is small, so that the commentator can easily avoid any transgression of this principle. Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, Exegesis (New York: The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913), p. 699, 2nd column.
Elsewhere in the same Encyclopedia we are informed that infalliblity extends only to the result of the decisions reached and not the stages (i.e. scriptural proof or other evidence adduced) which lead to the decision itself: It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached. Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, Exegesis (New York: The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913), p. 790, 2nd column.
If Oral Tradition is about the handling of Scripture then historically it is a complete and utter failure.
Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): Liberated from the error of
pagan tradition through the benevolence and loving kindness
of the good God, with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
by the operation of the Holy Spirit, I was reared from the very
beginning by Christian parents. From them I learned even in
babyhood the Holy Scriptures which led me to a knowledge of
the truth. When I grew to manhood, I traveled about frequently
and, in the natural course of things, I engaged in a great many
worldly affairs. Here I observed that the most harmonious
relations existed among those trained in the pursuit of each of
the arts and sciences; while in the Church of God alone, for
which Christ died and upon which He poured out in
abundance the Holy Spirit, I noticed that many disagree
violently with one another and also in their understanding of
the Holy Scriptures. Most alarming of all is the fact that I found
the very leaders of the Church themselves at such variance
with one another in thought and opinion, showing so much
opposition to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so
mercilessly rendering asunder the Church of God and cruelly
confounding His flock that, in our day, with the rise of the
Anomoeans, there is fulfilled in them as never before the
prophecy, ‘Of your own selves shall men arise speaking
perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.’
Witnessing such disorders as these and perplexed as to what
the cause and source of such evil might be, I at first was in a
state, as it were, of thick darkness and, as if on a balance, I
veered now this way, now thatâ€â€attracted now to one man,
now to another, under the influence of protracted association
with these persons, and then thrust in the other direction, as I
bethought myself of the validity of the Holy Scriptures. After a
long time spent in this state of indecision and while I was still
busily searching for the cause I have mentioned, there came to
my mind the Book of Judges which tells how each man did
what was right in his own eyes and gives the reason for this in
the words†‘In those days there was no king in Israel.’ With
these words in my mind, then, I applied also to the present
circumstances that explanation which, incredible and
frightening as it may be, is quite truly pertinent when it is
understood; for never before has there arisen such discord
and quarreling as now among the the members of the Church
in consequence of their turning away from the one, great, and
true God, only King of the universe. Each man, indeed,
abandons the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ and arrogates
to himself authority in dealing with certain questions, making
his own private rules, and preferring to exercise leadership in
opposition to the Lord to being led by the Lord. Reflecting
upon this and aghast at the magnitude of the impiety, I
pursued my investigation further and became convinced that
the aforesaid cause was no less the true source also of secular
difficulties. I noticed that as long as the common obedience of
the others to some one leader was maintained, all was
discipline and harmony in the whole group; but that division
and discord and a rivalry of leaders besides proceeded from a
lack of leadership. Moreover, I once had observed how even a
swarm of bees, in accordance with a law of nature, lives under
military discipline and obeys its own king with orderly
precision. Many such instances have I witnessed and many
others I have heard of, and persons who make profession of
such matters know many more still, so that they can vouch for
the truth of what I have said. Now, if good order with its
attendant harmony is characteristic of those who look to one
source of authority and are subject to one king, then universal
disorder and disharmony are a sign that leadership is wanting.
By the same token, if we discover in our midst such a lack of
accord as I have mentioned, both with regard to one another
and with respect to the Lord’s commands, it would be an
indictment either of our rejection of the true king, according
to the Scriptural saying: ‘only that he who now holdeth, do
hold, until he be taken out of the way,’ or of denial of Him
according to the Psalmist: ‘The fool hath said in his heart:
There is no God.’ And as a kind of token or proof of this, there
follow the words: ‘They are corrupt and are become
abominable in their ways.’ Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9,
Preface on the Judgment of God (New York: Fathers of the
Church, Inc., 1950), pp. 37-39.
In this case we can see that a Pope has devitated from the historic intrupertation of a passage of Scripture, thus has entertained his own private interpertation.
Augustine on Ps. 132
'Arise, O Lord, into Thy resting place' (ver. 8). He saith unto the Lord sleeping, 'Arise.' Ye know already who slept, and who rose again. ...'Thou, and the ark of Thy sanctification:' that is, Arise, that the ark of Thy sanctification, which Thou hast sanctified, may arise also. He is our Head; His ark is His Church: He arose first, the Church will arise also. The body would not dare to promise itself resurrection, save the Head arose first. The Body of Christ, that was born of Mary, hath been understood by some to be the ark of sanctification; so that the words mean, Arise with Thy Body, that they who believe not may handle." - Augustine (Expositions on the Psalms, 132:8)
"this privilege of the Virgin Mary's Assumption is in wonderful accord with those divine truths given us in Holy Scripture...Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers, have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption [of Mary]. Thus, to mention only a few of the texts rather frequently cited in this fashion, some have employed the words of the psalmist: 'Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified' [Psalm 132:8]; and have looked upon the Ark of the Covenant, built of incorruptible wood and placed in the Lord's temple, as a type of the most pure body of the Virgin Mary, preserved and exempt from all the corruption of the tomb and raised up to such glory in heaven." - Pope Pius XII (Munificentissimus Deus)
Peace to u,
Bill
