Protestant Pickle: 2 Thess. 2:15 - Response 4
Firstly, it's
clear that Paul was referring to orthodox traditions, that were
passed down from himself and the other
apostles, either "by word or our epistle." No
Catholic should argue this. It is also clear that there were traditions and teachings going around in the
early church that were NOT orthodox and not taught by
the
apostles. We know this because many of Paul's epistles are
largely apologetic in nature, addressing false
philosophies, doctrines & teachings, (See Galatians,
Colossians, etc.).
The Catholic here by asserting this verse, is trying to lay a foundation for the authority of the traditions held to by the Catholic faith. The problem however in using this verse, along with the rest of scripture, is that Paul was obviously NOT teaching that Christians hold to any and all traditions that they were taught, but only that which were authentic, and could be said to be orthodox and in line with the teachings of the apostles. Paul was in no-wise suggesting they hold to the traditions taught by the be-witched Galatians, or the Gnostic Colossians.
The Catholic employs this verse, with a large misunderstanding of "sola-scriptura". The proper use of this principle does not deny the use of tradition, but rather asserts all tradition must be tested for authenticity by Scripture. That tradition which cannot be found to agree with Scripture, must be rejected, and the Protestant rejects much of Catholic tradition (not all), based on this premise.
Scripture has authority, because it was written by the apostles, it is therefore Apostolic, and carries Apostolic authority. It is therefore the authorship of Holy Scripture which gives it its authority (not its approval by the Catholic Church). In order for tradition to carry authority, it must also be shown to be in line with, or to have come from the teaching of the apostles themselves. The real issue therefore is not whether it is valid for a Christian to believe in tradition (it most certainly is), but whether that tradition can be found to be the authentic teaching of the apostles and in line with other Apostolic revelation contained in Scripture.
This is in fact what a Catholic apologist must really achieve in asserting his traditions as valid doctrine, not harping on about the fact that Paul mentions oral traditions in 2Th. Tradition is not valid in and of itself (a Catholic will agree), it requires the authority of its original authorship, whether written or oral, and must be Apostolic, or alternatively must be found to agree with other commonly held Apostolic revelation, in order to be considered authoritative. This was largely the means by which the early church decided on the New Testament Canon, as some good Catholic apologists may point out. The synods of Carthage and Hippo, based their decisions on both the internal evidence of scripture in relation to its authorship, as well as the external evidence which was the general acceptance as to the apostolic authorship of various scripture, throughout the many churches. They did not however make their decisions with appeal to the infallibility of themselves or the papacy, but rather tested tradition by other apostolic revelation, either received written or orally. The protestant does no less today, yet the Catholic condemns them for doing their very same thing their own church has historically done. The Catholic today, makes appeal to scripture to test the doctrines of many cults, yet fails to do the same for its own doctrine, condemning others that do.
Ultimately the real issue is that the Catholic believes, that whatever command the Pope hands down is authoritative. The primary issue is not therefore tradition and 2Th, but the alleged authority of the Papacy via succession, which is for all intents and purposes impossible to uphold both historically and scripturally. This is the real pickle for Catholic apologists, and as such they will rarely raise historical and scriptural issues that show up this claim for what it really is.
There is therefore no pickle in 2Th 2, as it is clear that the Protestant, as does the Catholic hold to many historical Christian traditions. The difference is that the good Protestant tests his tradition by the bible, whereas the Catholic will test his tradition only by the claimed infallible interpretation of scripture (and other traditions) of the magisterium, the authority of which the protestant will reject. Moreover, in order for the intelligent Catholic to arrive at the conclusion of the authority of his infallible interpreter by which to test doctrine, the Catholic has first exercised his own infallible interpretation of scripture & tradition. Hypocritically, he then will turn around and condemn other Protestants for doing the same. The ultimate irony is that many times Catholics will not (and do not) even test their own traditions, by the historical and so called infallible decree's laid down by their own church.
I hope you can come up with a real pickle next time.
In Christ,
James
Art Sippo
responds:
There is therefore no pickle in 2Th 2, as it is clear that the Protestant, as does the Catholic hold to many historical Christian traditions.
By this admission, James completely vitiates the notion of sola scriptura. Unlike modern revisionsitic Protestant apologists who have been forced to admit the untenable nature of their errors, the original reformers rejected ALL traditions and accepted only those doctrines that they alleged were derived from a literal-historical interpretation of Scripture. In the extreme they taught that Scripture was to be interpreted univocally so that there would be a one-to-one correspondence between a bible verse and the truth that it revealed. There was no notion that TRADITIONAL interpretations of the Bible were to be given any consideration or authority because the Deformers were trying to assert new, innovative and clearly heretical teachings which contradicted previously confessed Traditions of the faith that had been held from the very beginning.
The difference is that the good Protestant tests his tradition by the bible, whereas the Catholic will test his tradition only by the claimed infallible interpretation of scripture (and other traditions) of the magisterium, the authority of which the protestant will reject.
This is nonsense. Catholics believe in many doctrines because they are contained in Scripture: the virgin birth, the divinity of Christ, the sacrificial death of Christ on the Cross, the Messsiahship of Jesus, the Real substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, the Primacy of the Pope, the superintendence of the Holy Spirit over the teaching authority (Magisterium) of the Church, purgation in the intermediate state, prayers for the dead, the spiritual motherhood of Mary, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the necessity of orthopraxis for salvation, etc.
Protestants, on the other hand, contradict the teaching of Scripture whenever it does not meet the criteria of agreeing with the systematic theological musings of their pet theologians. Protestant teachings are anti-biblical: sola fide contradicts James 2:24, the protestant denials of Church teaching authority contradicts John 14:26, Matthew 18:18, protestant denial of the Real substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist contradicts John 6:47ff, protestant denials of purgation after death contradict 1 Cor 3:13-15, protestant denials of prayer for the dead contradicts 2 Tim 1:16-18, protestant claim of sola scriptura contradicts 2 Thess 2:14&15, the protestant claim for private interpretation of Scripture contradicts 2 Peter 1:20 , etc.
Moreover, in order for the intelligent Catholic to arrive at the conclusion of the authority of his infallible interpreter by which to test doctrine, the Catholic has first exercised his own infallible interpretation of scripture & tradition.
This is a laughable objection. One can make the same charge to the protestant who denies Catholic teaching on the basis of his own infallible private interpretation of the Bible. The serious error here is the belief that one needs to be infallible to make a correct choice. Formal infallibility means that one cannot ever make a mistake. Material infallibility means that in a particular choice one has reasoned to a correct conclusion. I don't need to be infallible to be able to add 2+2 and be assured of getting the right answer.
The Catholic concludes on the basis of the historic witness of the Church, Tradition and Scripture that Jesus promised a permanent superintendent of His Church until He comes again. To come to any other conclusion is to contradict all of the historical sources that come to us from Jesus. The Catholic submits to the historic Church and its teachings.
The protestant, on the other hand, wants to be disobedient and dismissive of Historic Christian teaching. For this reason the protestant rejects the historic sources and uses vain man-made philosophies to invent his own novel and heretical theologies. The protestant invents his own new religions and tries to pretend that they are superior to the one that God founded.
Hypocritically, [Catholics] then will turn around and condemn other Protestants for doing the same.
How is it hypocritical to condemn heretics, schismatics, and apostates whose views have been consistently condemned for the last 450 years by the Catholic Church? It is our position that the teachings of Christ and His Church were entrusted to the Apostles and their successors who have faithfully handed them down under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit. Protestant cultists deny this. There is no hypocrisy in condemning error. We do not accept the protestant principle that every person is as competent to interpret Scripture and Tradition as the Magisterium. We condemn that. We do teach that ordinary people can be shown how the Church arrived at her official positions. Hence, there is no hypocrisy.
The ultimate irony is that many times Catholics will not (and do not) even test their own traditions, by the historical and so called infallible decree's laid down by their own church.
Sez who? It is the false protestant principle of "private interpretation" that makes that seem necessary. Our Lord and Savior said otherwise. When addressing himself to the ministers he had set up in his movement, Jesus told them:
Luk 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
So, Jesus himself taught that all who refuse to submit to the Apostles and their successors (prots included) thereby disobey God.
The Scriptures themselves contradict you!
Art Sippo
The Catholic Legate
September 27, 2005