Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition

*

I received another email from a "a friend" who wishes to remain anonymous:

an intersting link concerning Roman Catholicism, the Bible,

and Tradition.

http://www.raptureready.us/catholicism.htm

a friend

Yes, it is an intersting link, particularly the first section of the article which "a friend" wants me to read: "Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition." It's a much more fair and reasonable treatment of the subject than what was sent to me before.)

The gist of the writer's view is well stated in these two paragraphs:

The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it "transgresses the commands of God" (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus' own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way.

Though the Catholic Church officially states that Sacred Tradition should not and does not contradict Scripture, Protestants see much of the teaching from this Sacred Tradition as doing just that. It isn't enough for the Catholic to say that their church is the true church, that they have the apostolic tradition, that they hold the keys to the truth, and that they have revealed doctrines consistent with biblical revelation. Likewise, it isn't enough for a Protestant to pass judgment upon Catholic doctrines simply because they are Catholic and are derived via Sacred Tradition. [Emphasis mine.]

Most Protestants, if they are honest, will admit to holding to some tradition. Why else would they observe Sunday as their day of community worship? There is no explicit statement in Scripture to do so. Neither does the Bible clearly state the Trinititarian dogmas (i.e., one God in three Persons, each of whom is fully God--with Jesus being one Person but having two natures, human and divine). The majority of Protestantism, however, still believes them.

Why?

Because while the Trinity doctrine, for example, is not clearly spelled out in Scripture, the doctrine does not contradict it. There's no room for God to be anything else once you cancel out all the heretical views.

• He can't be two or three Gods, because Scripture, Tradition, and good philosophy say there can only be one.
• God can't be the Father alone, because the Son and the Holy Spirit are also called "God."
• God, in His essence, can't have length and width, because such physical dimensions presuppose a physical creation. Since He created all things seen and unseen, He cannot have bodily composition -- for He IS the Composer.

Anti-Trinitarians frequently say the doctrine is confused and contradictory. But they're wrong. If it was said that there were three Gods in one God, that would be a contradiction. But the Trinity teaches that there is ONE God Being (that which always existed, is omnicient, omnipresent, etc.). This state of Being -- that which eternally IS -- is shared by three who have relationship with each other. To borrow a phrase, you could say that God is "One What and Three Whos." That's how Jesus, while on earth, could pray to His Father. Both are Creator God, but there is a subject-object distinction here -- a relationship. The same goes for the Holy Spirit. They are all one in Being, but three in Persons that relate to one another.

The truth is, any other explanation contradicts Scripture and sound reasoning.

But guess what? This widely accepted, fundamental Christian teaching is plain, old-fashioned Tradition, with a capital "T" -- not to be confused with minor little-"t" traditions, such as praying with one's fingers interlaced, observing certain fast days, or crossing oneself. While belief in the Trinity is not derived from explicit declarative statements in the Bible (as if the Bible were written as an exhaustive theological treatise in topical format), it does not contradict Scripture. The consistent Tradition of the Church fills in the cracks. (Incidentally, the Bible itself is the product of Sacred Tradition.)

We see that the problem arises from people saying that the Church's Sacred Tradition opposes Scripture when in fact it does not. This is the same problem faced by the Church in the days of Acts 15 during the circumcision controversy. Some of the Christian believers were saying, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses [synonymous with the law of God, or Word of God]" (verse 5). Yet we all agree that the apostles' decision did not contradict Scripture, and that the decision was binding on all believers everywhere.

Another thought: Even in my own religious background, we observed the Lord's Supper by eating bread and drinking wine and washing each other's feet. With an incorrect understanding but with the best of intentions, we emphasized that not one jot or tittle would ever pass from the Law (Matt. 5:17); yet, compared to the Passover of the Old Testament, our service was on the wrong day, held at the wrong place, did not involve the killing of a literal lamb, etc. One could argue that Jesus never said we should stop observing the Passover laws when He instituted the Lord's Supper. Scripture never says that our bread-and-wine service is to replace the Passover observance. Can't we see that the Bible, while inspired and infallible, was not written as a comprehensive Handbook for the Complete Christian? We can't artificially divorce Scripture and Tradition.

The same Spirit that moved in Jerusalem during the first Church Council also moved in the Church throughout history -- to our time now. The early Church's understanding of Scripture and Tradition continues to serve as a model for us today.

_____________
* The Bible pictured above is identical to the one I use, minus the tabbed index. It's a Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, published by Sceptre Press.