I read an interesting debate between Gerry Matatics and Reverend Jones about Sola Scriptura.  It is at www.cobweb.net/~dkeene/debate/1debate.htm.  Can you comment on it?  At his last post Mr. Jones argues that the difference between Catholics and Protestants is not about the existence of oral tradition.  Rather the dispute is between the supremacy of oral(?)/written revelation vs. non-revelatory, infallible explications given by a Magisterium.  The Bible, he says, does not speak about infallible yet uninspired revelation.  There is none in the OT BECAUSE THE PROPHETS WERE INSPIRED AND THE APOSTLES WERE TOO.  But the successors are not said to be inspired.  Can you comment on your web page?  I would really appreciate it.
his Mr. Jones makes a common mistake to which most Protestants succumb.  He creates his own definitions of "inspiration", "revelation", "infallible", etc. based upon his Protestant presuppositions and then projects them back into the Bible and/or onto Catholic teaching.  In this case, he makes a distinction between the Apostles and their successors that appears NOWHERE in the Bible and acts as if Catholics attribute "inspiration" to the Bishops and the Pope.  Let's set the record straight.
The Prophets did not control the religion of Israel.  The Priests did.  And in fact, all the prophets in the OT were in fact Priests to the best of my knowledge.  There is no direct typological link to be made between the OT Prophets as a group and the Apostles.  The Prophets were emergent spiritual leaders in Israel who sometimes were apprenticed for their role.  They only spoke in the name of YHWH and not on their own authority.  The Apostles were designated by Christ and given authority "to bind and to loose".  This latter type of authority was held by the Priests in Israel and exercised primarily by the High Priest in Jerusalem and the Sanhedrin.  At the time of Christ, many priests belonged to the Pharisaic movement (i.e. "the separated" or the "consecrated") and they exercised authority which even Jesus acknowledged as binding on the Jews.
The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.  (Matthew 23:2-3)
[By the way, the term "seat" in Latin is "cathedra".  It is the root word for the english word "cathedral" which is the Bishop's Church in the diocese where he "holds court".  it is also the root for the term "ex cathedra" used when the Pope exercises his extraordinary teaching powers to define a dogma.  The reason that this term is used to denote authoritative teaching and authority over the people of God is because in the Hebrew world, a teacher always sits when he is teaching.  You will see in the Gospels that whenever Jesus plans to teach something he always sits down before he begins.]
Now nobody claims that the Scribes and Pharisees were inspired.  But their teaching was authoritative and binding on the conscience according to a very highly placed and unimpeachable source (ie. Jesus).
We also see this in John's gospel:
But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish."  He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.  (John 11:49-52)
There was also a sense of this in the OT in some places.  For example:
[God speaks to Moses about his Brother Aaron who will be the first High Priest of Israel ] And you shall speak to him and put the Words in his mouth; and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and will teach you what you shall do.  He shall speak for you to the people; and he shall be a mouth for you, and you shall be to him as God.  (Exodus 4:15-16)
And I have put my words in your mouth, and hid you in the shadow of my hand, stretching out the heavens and laying the foundations of the earth, and saying to Zion, "You are my people."  (Isaiah 51:16)
These two quotations are not strictly referring to Prophetic utterances or to what would become the writings of Scripture, but to official teaching from within the Israelite community which proceeds from the Priest as Priest.  So there is a sense of the Priest as someone who speaks authoritatively for God even in the OT.
Also, while it is true that SOME of the Prophets and SOME of the Apostles had their words preserved in scripture, most did not.  In fact, several books of the OT were not written by Prophets at all (e.g. Psalms, Ecclesiastes) as can also be said about some of the NT books (eg. Mark, Luke, & Acts).
A better comparison is between the Jewish Priests and the Apostles.  This is in fact what you find in the 1st Letter of Pope St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (chap 40ff) written @95 AD.
The Catholic Church has never claimed that the hierarchy was inspired.  That is reserved only to the authors of the Scriptures.  Rather, the Bishops and the Pope are under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit to preserve them from error.  This is clearly taught in Matthew 16:16-19:
Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."  And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona!  For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.  And I tell you, you are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven."
Most commentators fail to connect this up to this earlier quote from Matthew 10:
Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them and the Gentiles.  When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. (v.17-20
As you can see, Jesus is promising that the testimony before the Gentiles will be the Father "speaking through you".  This connects up nicely to Matthew 16:16-19 and explains precisely (Scripture interpreting Scripture) what Jesus is promising to St. Peter.  ( As similar promise is made to the Apostles as a whole in Matthew 18:18.) There is no mention of this being relegated only to the original 12 Apostles.  In fact how useless a promise this would be if the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church for only the first generation of Christians after Christ!  No, the promise is perpetual and that in itself implies succession.
We also have the further word of St. Peter himself in 2 Peter (the second Papal encyclical if you will) about authoritative teaching in the Church.
And we have the prophetic word made more sure.  You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.  First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2 Peter 1:19-21
St. Peter is saying that the Christian Church has the prophetic word made more sure than in the OT.  St. Peter is referring to his own preaching of the Gospel.
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Peter 1:16
How could this word of the Scripture be true today if there was not an authoritative witness present in the office of St. Peter's successor?  It is pretty useless to advise the Church that she has a sure guidance to understand the Scripture by "men moved by the Holy Spirit" when this guidance died out 1900 years ago.  St. Peter is saying that only an authoritative guidance under Divine superintendence can assure that the Scriptures will be interpreted correctly.
How is the guidance of the Holy Spirit passed on to the next generation of ministers?  St. Paul tells us:
[Written to Bishop Timothy] Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.  Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you.  (1 Timothy 4:13-14)
[Again to Bishop Timothy] Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; for God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and Love and self-control.  (2 Timothy 1:6-7)
What more can we say.  Both the OT and the NT bear witness to a charism of authority handed down from of old to preserve the People of God in the truths that have been revealed to them.  This charism cannot be reduced to the prophetic words preserved in Scripture, nor merely to the bygone ages of Israel or the Church.  It is part of the everlasting patrimony which Christ promised to his people until he comes again.  As always we should let Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ have the last word:
He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.  (Matthew 10:40)
He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.  (Luke 10: 16)
Art Sippo