See HERE for other essays.
See also: Baptism: Tradition Or Scripture?
CONTENTS:
1: Man-made or Apostolic?
2: Blinded By the Basics
3: The Power Behind Tradition
1: Man-made or Apostolic?
Many of those who love the Bible are offended by Roman Catholic Tradition, but why? If Scripture and Tradition are together the infallible Truth of God we should all be in agreement. Surely all true Christians shouldn’t hesitate to embrace the traditions that give Roman Catholicism its distinctive character.
We are told that the Church's “Apostolic Tradition” is not man-made. Just because aspects of infallible Tradition aren’t explicitly taught in the Bible doesn’t mean they are false. Roman Catholic Tradition, we are assured, does in fact go all the way back to the time of the apostles and Christ. Doesn’t the Bible itself allude to these very traditions in 1st Corinthians 11:2, 2nd Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6, and Philippians 4:9?
But we need a reality check here. Isn’t it perfectly reasonable to argue that the early Church traditions referred to in these verses are not the Apostolic Traditions we find in today’s Roman Catholic Church? Surely it’s possible these Bible verses refer to teachings that are laid out fully and clearly throughout the Gospels, the Book of Acts and the New Testament letters.
In Roman Catholicism, Divine and Apostolic Traditions are the teachings and ordinances of Christ and the apostles which were not written down but rather passed on without error, generation to generation, by word of mouth. We are to believe that over a very long period of time these ancient and infallible oral teachings became established in the Roman Catholic religion: purgatory, the mass and transubstantiation, the priesthood, celibacy of priests, the confessional, prayers for the dead, penance, indulgences, veneration of The Virgin Mary, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the assumption of The Virgin Mary into heaven, the papacy and the infallibility of the Pope, and so on.
But there’s a big problem. Why are we unable to find these practices and beliefs explicitly taught anywhere in the Bible? Surprisingly we are told we shouldn’t be too concerned about this. It simply doesn’t matter that the most distinctive characteristics and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are nowhere expounded in God-breathed Scripture with a clarity that confirms their authenticity. Are we to trawl through the Church fathers instead? Really?
The evolution of Roman Catholic Tradition should quickly remind us of Jewish leaders and teachers during the time of Christ. In Jesus’ day the religious authorities had blended God’s Law (His Word) with many oral traditions. This toxic mix of man-made teachings and the Law encouraged people to submit to tradition rather than God's written Word alone. The apostate Jews invalidated the Word of God for the sake of their tradition. I would contend that the Roman Catholic religion does exactly the same thing.
At the time of Christ the influence of oral tradition over Scripture was so significant that it effectively obscured God's Law, the Word written down by the prophets as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. While claiming succession from Moses the Jewish religious leaders and teachers exercised an authority that extended to their man-made traditions. Knowing the harmfulness of such tradition Christ told the people around Him to “do and observe” only what came from the Law but to ignore the oral tradition of men.
In Mark 7, quoting from Isaiah, Jesus told these same Pharisees and scribes, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines human commands…” And He added: “Abandoning the command of God, you hold on to human tradition” (CSB).
This is exactly what we see in the Roman Catholic system today—and yesterday. Hundreds of years ago, in a hard-hitting backlash to what we call The Reformation, the Roman Catholic hierarchy got together in a council (of Trent) and produced documents that specifically targeted the free circulation of the Bible:
“Translations of the books of the Old Testament may in the judgment of the bishop be permitted to learned and pious men only, provided such translations are used only as elucidations of the Vulgate Edition… Translations of the New Testament made by authors of the first class of this list shall be permitted to no one, since great danger and little usefulness usually results to readers from their perusal” (Council of Trent, “Rules on Prohibited Books”).
Just to be clear, here we have an irrevocable proclamation from the Roman Catholic system banning the distribution of comprehensible Bible versions among the public. Why? Authority belonged to Rome alone. This was a critical necessity because when separated from this false Tradition God’s Word offers an altogether different way of Salvation to that of Roman Catholicism. Biblical salvation was outlawed:
“If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate, in order to obtain the grace of justification…let him be anathema… If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law [the canons and infallible decrees of the Roman Catholic religion] are not necessary for salvation... [and that] men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification… let him be anathema [given up to destruction]” (Council of Trent).
The same Roman Catholic system today makes much of the authority of unwritten, or oral tradition. As already mentioned, the Roman system claims its Tradition has been passed down orally from the early Church. However, it’s perfectly logical and reasonable to conclude Christian “traditions” alluded to in the New Testament had already been shared with local churches. The fullness of the teaching tradition was already established and is found in full in the New Testament scriptures we have today.
The Roman system has no choice but to massage and misuse Scripture in an attempt to validate its extra-biblical Tradition. Ecclesiastical definitions must be brought over from Tradition and awkwardly infused into Bible texts. Preference must be given to the demands of a “human tradition” that’s alien to the fullness of God’s Word. The catechism of the Roman Catholic system infallibly states:
"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone… sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls" (emphasis added).
In Roman Catholicism the “salvation of souls” begins with the spiritual new birth in the Sacrament of Baptism. But even though a person may be “freed from sin and reborn” in baptism, he may in the future commit a mortal sin and risk ending up in "hell" anyway.
The Roman Catholic’s venial sins are dealt with in Purgatory over an unknown period of time, and masses can be bought to deal with this unfortunate condition. Indulgences can be purchased for the souls of those who suffer in Purgatory because of their venial sins, but by committing a mortal sin the Roman Catholic is deprived of God’s grace. He cannot enter Heaven unless he repents and starts again. This condition is not to be confused with authentic Bible teaching regarding those who seem to believe the true Gospel message in Scripture yet fall away into sin and unbelief.
The Tradition-based teaching of justification in Roman Catholicism is a dreadful corruption of the biblical position. The two are very different. The Roman Catholic becomes increasingly righteous as he receives more sacraments. With the essential help of the Church and the priest his justification is increased when he performs good works, but is decreased by venial sin, or lost altogether if he commits a mortal sin.
Rather than bringing religious clarity to God’s Truth, the all-pervasive distraction of Roman Catholic Tradition actually undermines the authority of Scripture. It disastrously shifts attention away from the powerful effects of true salvation in Christ.
In God’s true and authoritative salvation, the righteousness of Christ is credited to those who put their faith in Him: “...the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe” (Romans 3:22); “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness…” (Romans 4:5); “...be reconciled to God. He made Him [Christ] who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2nd Corinthians 5:20, 21); "...be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith," (Philippians 3:9, NASB). This Bible truth is the very teaching the Council of Trent anathematised (see above).
Let’s be very clear about the authentic Gospel message laid out plainly in the Bible: Christ took to Himself all of the sin, guilt and punishment of all those who are lost. To put it another way, our sin and its dire implications have been credited to His account; through His work on the cross he has fully dealt with our sin and in return we receive His perfect righteousness—we fully enjoy a right standing with God. By our faith alone, Christ's righteousness is imputed (or credited) to the believer’s account.
“For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:17-19, NASB).
When Roman Catholic Tradition is taken out of the way we can see that Scripture fully defines the sufficiency of God's salvation. The Gospels and letters define in full the once-for-all forgiveness that results in eternal life: following our true repentance we place our faith in Christ and acknowledge His redemptive work on the cross. By so doing we are fully delivered from the wrath to come.
Scripture alone fully defines the essential practices of each local church as part of the Body of Christ. Roman Catholic Tradition isn't necessary. Scripture alone fully defines the spiritual disciplines associated with the believer's life of faith in Christ, realised through the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. Roman Catholic Tradition isn't necessary.
2: Blinded By the Basics
When you familiarise yourself with the detailed teaching in the complete Catechism of the Catholic Church, you may conclude that the average Roman Catholic knows precious little about it.
It seems to me that Roman Catholics are brought up knowing only the basics of their Catechism. For the vast majority of them there is no need to examine it more fully. But maybe more of them should.
It's not an easy read! I have consulted it myself over the years when clarifying the official Roman Catholic position on various points of doctrine. While examining it I make use of my extensive knowledge of biblical teaching. The difference between the two is, well, striking, to put it kindly.
Over the decades, I've occasionally analysed the ways in which Bible doctrine and Roman Catholic Tradition are wholly incompatible. This should surprise the average Roman Catholic who would understandably assume that infallible Tradition and Holy Scripture together form the one deposit of divine Truth entrusted by God to the Church.
As suggested above, there is a total breakdown of logic in the belief that Roman Catholic Tradition is essential divine Truth that has always existed from the days of the apostles but was never included in Scripture. We are expected to believe that some of Christ’s teaching and apostolic instruction have been passed down orally over many hundreds of years. Why would this happen? Why would the apostles not write clearly about these practices and beliefs in their letters?
At the outset this untenable opinion fails to recognise the inescapable conclusion that the traditions alluded to in the New Testament letters had already been established among the early local churches (consider again 1st Corinthians 11:2, 2nd Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6; Philippians 4:9). It’s unreasonable to claim that the fullness of these apostolic traditions are not reinforced in the writing that now exists in the ancient copies of documents we use today to reconstruct the New Testament text. The absurdity of infallible oral Tradition must be smuggled in somehow! But in truth, Roman Catholic Tradition isn't necessary.
Also, if these traditions that so uniquely characterise the Roman Catholic Church today were fully practised throughout the very early years of Christianity, why are they not clearly mentioned in any of the New Testament letters or the Book of Acts? At the very least wouldn’t we expect the two letters from Peter to detail some of these extra-biblical practices. After all wasn’t he the first pope? “The first see... is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus, A.D. 382). Why would these "traditions" be accepted as infallible Church Truth among all the elders and apostles yet not be written about from the beginning in the letters that have survived?
Once again we see that Roman Catholic Tradition is not needed.
3: The Power Behind Tradition
I was reminding myself the other day of how difficult it can be building a solid case against the relentless power of religious conditioning. It is a formidable force. In our modern Internet age it's likely we will face auto-responses to every point-of-view. These days it's not that difficult to access quality information online.
Carefully prepared answers to criticism and complaint are commonplace. It's a bit like calling a mega-company to reasonably complain about something and knowing the person at the other end is responding with off-pat pre-defined solutions read off a screen. So you get passed around!
In my opinion and experience this is very much the case with institutionalised Christianity and its domineering traditions. Popular Scripture-centred indictments will probably trigger a specific range of standard apologetic responses. It’s the way we all are these days. However, common among these Roman Catholic responses will be the inappropriate and inaccurate use of Scripture texts to build a case that may also indirectly pander to ecumenical goals. After all, yesterday’s heretics are today’s “separated brethren”.
What is the Roman Catholic purpose in ecumenism?
According to Cardinal Bea, writing in his book The Unity of Christians, published 1963, the ecumenical movement is a mechanism that leads baptised, unhappily "separated brethren" back to the "Apostolic See". "In virtue of Baptism," he asserts, "they are subjects and members of the [Roman Catholic] Church... She has a strict duty, then, to do everything in her power to bring them back to her.
"[The] unity of the separated members is not to be brought about by force but by the free acceptance of union with the Catholic Church... What we have said makes clear how the Catholic Church understands the ecumenical movement." (Cardinal Bea was appointed President of the Secretariat for promoting Christian Unity by the pope of the day and wrote with the full authority of the Roman Catholic Church.)
Conditioning is often deeply rooted, imprinted into the depths of our minds. Thinking outside the box can be very, very hard to do. We all need to examine ourselves severely at times. And we must do our best to avoid attitudes and argumentation that lead to contention and entrenchment. Correction is worthless without love and humility. Are your intentions pure? Are you sure you've checked your facts?
I've found in real world contexts it's very important to be solidly grounded in Scripture. It’s the true believer’s final and all-sufficient authority. Of course, you should also know your subject as thoroughly as you can before you make your point. The balanced fullness of Scripture—the uniformity of its doctrines—is ultimately the best defence against false teaching, even though it will be inaccurately handled by those who are held captive by the power of man-made Tradition.
If you take this stance it's virtually guaranteed you'll be accused of pushing on others your personal interpretations, or those of your church denomination, if you have one. So there comes a point were it's best to back off and turn to prayer. Minds steeped in religious falsehood rely wholly on natural gifts and the intellect to counteract carefully considered Scripture-based criticism.
But we must remember that the fundamental problem is always spiritual. We never wrestle with flesh and blood.
See also: Baptism: Tradition Or Scripture?
CONTENTS:
1: Man-made or Apostolic?
2: Blinded By the Basics
3: The Power Behind Tradition
1: Man-made or Apostolic?
Many of those who love the Bible are offended by Roman Catholic Tradition, but why? If Scripture and Tradition are together the infallible Truth of God we should all be in agreement. Surely all true Christians shouldn’t hesitate to embrace the traditions that give Roman Catholicism its distinctive character.
We are told that the Church's “Apostolic Tradition” is not man-made. Just because aspects of infallible Tradition aren’t explicitly taught in the Bible doesn’t mean they are false. Roman Catholic Tradition, we are assured, does in fact go all the way back to the time of the apostles and Christ. Doesn’t the Bible itself allude to these very traditions in 1st Corinthians 11:2, 2nd Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6, and Philippians 4:9?
But we need a reality check here. Isn’t it perfectly reasonable to argue that the early Church traditions referred to in these verses are not the Apostolic Traditions we find in today’s Roman Catholic Church? Surely it’s possible these Bible verses refer to teachings that are laid out fully and clearly throughout the Gospels, the Book of Acts and the New Testament letters.
In Roman Catholicism, Divine and Apostolic Traditions are the teachings and ordinances of Christ and the apostles which were not written down but rather passed on without error, generation to generation, by word of mouth. We are to believe that over a very long period of time these ancient and infallible oral teachings became established in the Roman Catholic religion: purgatory, the mass and transubstantiation, the priesthood, celibacy of priests, the confessional, prayers for the dead, penance, indulgences, veneration of The Virgin Mary, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the assumption of The Virgin Mary into heaven, the papacy and the infallibility of the Pope, and so on.
But there’s a big problem. Why are we unable to find these practices and beliefs explicitly taught anywhere in the Bible? Surprisingly we are told we shouldn’t be too concerned about this. It simply doesn’t matter that the most distinctive characteristics and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are nowhere expounded in God-breathed Scripture with a clarity that confirms their authenticity. Are we to trawl through the Church fathers instead? Really?
The evolution of Roman Catholic Tradition should quickly remind us of Jewish leaders and teachers during the time of Christ. In Jesus’ day the religious authorities had blended God’s Law (His Word) with many oral traditions. This toxic mix of man-made teachings and the Law encouraged people to submit to tradition rather than God's written Word alone. The apostate Jews invalidated the Word of God for the sake of their tradition. I would contend that the Roman Catholic religion does exactly the same thing.
At the time of Christ the influence of oral tradition over Scripture was so significant that it effectively obscured God's Law, the Word written down by the prophets as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. While claiming succession from Moses the Jewish religious leaders and teachers exercised an authority that extended to their man-made traditions. Knowing the harmfulness of such tradition Christ told the people around Him to “do and observe” only what came from the Law but to ignore the oral tradition of men.
In Mark 7, quoting from Isaiah, Jesus told these same Pharisees and scribes, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines human commands…” And He added: “Abandoning the command of God, you hold on to human tradition” (CSB).
This is exactly what we see in the Roman Catholic system today—and yesterday. Hundreds of years ago, in a hard-hitting backlash to what we call The Reformation, the Roman Catholic hierarchy got together in a council (of Trent) and produced documents that specifically targeted the free circulation of the Bible:
“Translations of the books of the Old Testament may in the judgment of the bishop be permitted to learned and pious men only, provided such translations are used only as elucidations of the Vulgate Edition… Translations of the New Testament made by authors of the first class of this list shall be permitted to no one, since great danger and little usefulness usually results to readers from their perusal” (Council of Trent, “Rules on Prohibited Books”).
Just to be clear, here we have an irrevocable proclamation from the Roman Catholic system banning the distribution of comprehensible Bible versions among the public. Why? Authority belonged to Rome alone. This was a critical necessity because when separated from this false Tradition God’s Word offers an altogether different way of Salvation to that of Roman Catholicism. Biblical salvation was outlawed:
“If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate, in order to obtain the grace of justification…let him be anathema… If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law [the canons and infallible decrees of the Roman Catholic religion] are not necessary for salvation... [and that] men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification… let him be anathema [given up to destruction]” (Council of Trent).
The same Roman Catholic system today makes much of the authority of unwritten, or oral tradition. As already mentioned, the Roman system claims its Tradition has been passed down orally from the early Church. However, it’s perfectly logical and reasonable to conclude Christian “traditions” alluded to in the New Testament had already been shared with local churches. The fullness of the teaching tradition was already established and is found in full in the New Testament scriptures we have today.
The Roman system has no choice but to massage and misuse Scripture in an attempt to validate its extra-biblical Tradition. Ecclesiastical definitions must be brought over from Tradition and awkwardly infused into Bible texts. Preference must be given to the demands of a “human tradition” that’s alien to the fullness of God’s Word. The catechism of the Roman Catholic system infallibly states:
"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone… sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls" (emphasis added).
In Roman Catholicism the “salvation of souls” begins with the spiritual new birth in the Sacrament of Baptism. But even though a person may be “freed from sin and reborn” in baptism, he may in the future commit a mortal sin and risk ending up in "hell" anyway.
The Roman Catholic’s venial sins are dealt with in Purgatory over an unknown period of time, and masses can be bought to deal with this unfortunate condition. Indulgences can be purchased for the souls of those who suffer in Purgatory because of their venial sins, but by committing a mortal sin the Roman Catholic is deprived of God’s grace. He cannot enter Heaven unless he repents and starts again. This condition is not to be confused with authentic Bible teaching regarding those who seem to believe the true Gospel message in Scripture yet fall away into sin and unbelief.
The Tradition-based teaching of justification in Roman Catholicism is a dreadful corruption of the biblical position. The two are very different. The Roman Catholic becomes increasingly righteous as he receives more sacraments. With the essential help of the Church and the priest his justification is increased when he performs good works, but is decreased by venial sin, or lost altogether if he commits a mortal sin.
Rather than bringing religious clarity to God’s Truth, the all-pervasive distraction of Roman Catholic Tradition actually undermines the authority of Scripture. It disastrously shifts attention away from the powerful effects of true salvation in Christ.
In God’s true and authoritative salvation, the righteousness of Christ is credited to those who put their faith in Him: “...the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe” (Romans 3:22); “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness…” (Romans 4:5); “...be reconciled to God. He made Him [Christ] who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2nd Corinthians 5:20, 21); "...be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith," (Philippians 3:9, NASB). This Bible truth is the very teaching the Council of Trent anathematised (see above).
Let’s be very clear about the authentic Gospel message laid out plainly in the Bible: Christ took to Himself all of the sin, guilt and punishment of all those who are lost. To put it another way, our sin and its dire implications have been credited to His account; through His work on the cross he has fully dealt with our sin and in return we receive His perfect righteousness—we fully enjoy a right standing with God. By our faith alone, Christ's righteousness is imputed (or credited) to the believer’s account.
“For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:17-19, NASB).
When Roman Catholic Tradition is taken out of the way we can see that Scripture fully defines the sufficiency of God's salvation. The Gospels and letters define in full the once-for-all forgiveness that results in eternal life: following our true repentance we place our faith in Christ and acknowledge His redemptive work on the cross. By so doing we are fully delivered from the wrath to come.
Scripture alone fully defines the essential practices of each local church as part of the Body of Christ. Roman Catholic Tradition isn't necessary. Scripture alone fully defines the spiritual disciplines associated with the believer's life of faith in Christ, realised through the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. Roman Catholic Tradition isn't necessary.
2: Blinded By the Basics
When you familiarise yourself with the detailed teaching in the complete Catechism of the Catholic Church, you may conclude that the average Roman Catholic knows precious little about it.
It seems to me that Roman Catholics are brought up knowing only the basics of their Catechism. For the vast majority of them there is no need to examine it more fully. But maybe more of them should.
It's not an easy read! I have consulted it myself over the years when clarifying the official Roman Catholic position on various points of doctrine. While examining it I make use of my extensive knowledge of biblical teaching. The difference between the two is, well, striking, to put it kindly.
Over the decades, I've occasionally analysed the ways in which Bible doctrine and Roman Catholic Tradition are wholly incompatible. This should surprise the average Roman Catholic who would understandably assume that infallible Tradition and Holy Scripture together form the one deposit of divine Truth entrusted by God to the Church.
As suggested above, there is a total breakdown of logic in the belief that Roman Catholic Tradition is essential divine Truth that has always existed from the days of the apostles but was never included in Scripture. We are expected to believe that some of Christ’s teaching and apostolic instruction have been passed down orally over many hundreds of years. Why would this happen? Why would the apostles not write clearly about these practices and beliefs in their letters?
At the outset this untenable opinion fails to recognise the inescapable conclusion that the traditions alluded to in the New Testament letters had already been established among the early local churches (consider again 1st Corinthians 11:2, 2nd Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6; Philippians 4:9). It’s unreasonable to claim that the fullness of these apostolic traditions are not reinforced in the writing that now exists in the ancient copies of documents we use today to reconstruct the New Testament text. The absurdity of infallible oral Tradition must be smuggled in somehow! But in truth, Roman Catholic Tradition isn't necessary.
Also, if these traditions that so uniquely characterise the Roman Catholic Church today were fully practised throughout the very early years of Christianity, why are they not clearly mentioned in any of the New Testament letters or the Book of Acts? At the very least wouldn’t we expect the two letters from Peter to detail some of these extra-biblical practices. After all wasn’t he the first pope? “The first see... is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus, A.D. 382). Why would these "traditions" be accepted as infallible Church Truth among all the elders and apostles yet not be written about from the beginning in the letters that have survived?
Once again we see that Roman Catholic Tradition is not needed.
3: The Power Behind Tradition
I was reminding myself the other day of how difficult it can be building a solid case against the relentless power of religious conditioning. It is a formidable force. In our modern Internet age it's likely we will face auto-responses to every point-of-view. These days it's not that difficult to access quality information online.
Carefully prepared answers to criticism and complaint are commonplace. It's a bit like calling a mega-company to reasonably complain about something and knowing the person at the other end is responding with off-pat pre-defined solutions read off a screen. So you get passed around!
In my opinion and experience this is very much the case with institutionalised Christianity and its domineering traditions. Popular Scripture-centred indictments will probably trigger a specific range of standard apologetic responses. It’s the way we all are these days. However, common among these Roman Catholic responses will be the inappropriate and inaccurate use of Scripture texts to build a case that may also indirectly pander to ecumenical goals. After all, yesterday’s heretics are today’s “separated brethren”.
What is the Roman Catholic purpose in ecumenism?
According to Cardinal Bea, writing in his book The Unity of Christians, published 1963, the ecumenical movement is a mechanism that leads baptised, unhappily "separated brethren" back to the "Apostolic See". "In virtue of Baptism," he asserts, "they are subjects and members of the [Roman Catholic] Church... She has a strict duty, then, to do everything in her power to bring them back to her.
"[The] unity of the separated members is not to be brought about by force but by the free acceptance of union with the Catholic Church... What we have said makes clear how the Catholic Church understands the ecumenical movement." (Cardinal Bea was appointed President of the Secretariat for promoting Christian Unity by the pope of the day and wrote with the full authority of the Roman Catholic Church.)
Conditioning is often deeply rooted, imprinted into the depths of our minds. Thinking outside the box can be very, very hard to do. We all need to examine ourselves severely at times. And we must do our best to avoid attitudes and argumentation that lead to contention and entrenchment. Correction is worthless without love and humility. Are your intentions pure? Are you sure you've checked your facts?
I've found in real world contexts it's very important to be solidly grounded in Scripture. It’s the true believer’s final and all-sufficient authority. Of course, you should also know your subject as thoroughly as you can before you make your point. The balanced fullness of Scripture—the uniformity of its doctrines—is ultimately the best defence against false teaching, even though it will be inaccurately handled by those who are held captive by the power of man-made Tradition.
If you take this stance it's virtually guaranteed you'll be accused of pushing on others your personal interpretations, or those of your church denomination, if you have one. So there comes a point were it's best to back off and turn to prayer. Minds steeped in religious falsehood rely wholly on natural gifts and the intellect to counteract carefully considered Scripture-based criticism.
But we must remember that the fundamental problem is always spiritual. We never wrestle with flesh and blood.
