To establish the proper perspective as to traditions in relation to the Bible, consider what the same apostle, Paul, wrote at 2 Timothy 3:15-17: From infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through the faith in connection with Christ Jesus.
Very true; but Paul makes no mention of the exclusivity of Scripture to the exclusion of all other forms of revelation.
All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work. No mention here of oral tradition in addition to Scripture as being indispensable for salvation and faith and for ones being fully competent and completely equipped as a Christian.
2 Timothy 3:16 is often used as a "proof text" for
sola Scriptura, with the idea that it plainly shows that only Scripture is needed as a rule for faith and doctrine. Notice what this verse says, though: "
All Scripture is inspired, beneficial, etc." Catholics will agree heartily that "all Scripture is" inspired, beneficial, and so forth. However, also notice what the verse
doesn't say: it does
not say,
"Only Scripture is inspired, beneficial, etc. Again, Paul makes no argument for the exclusivity of Scripture over other forms of revelation; and if one takes the remainder of Paul's writings in context, the argument seems to go
against sola Scriptura rather than for it. And without doubt, if one studies the development of the New Testament within the framework of the earliest Church,
sola Scriptura falls completely apart.
The New Testament was not written as a sort of "Christian Handbook" containing every single item about Christianity that the believer needed to know; it was written as a collection of instructions and first and second-hand memories about Christ's ministry, and addressed to people who already
knew the Faith through oral instruction. Even Luke mentions this in his prologue to his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4); he's telling Theophilus, "You already know this stuff, and there's a lot of histories out there right now, but I decided I'd start from scratch, research the whole thing thoroughly, and write down an entirely new history so you get the story in an orderly sequence." Verse 4 is the zinger: "So that you may realize the certainty of the teachings
you have recieved." Theophilus already
knows the teachings about Christ; the only thing Luke is doing is writing things down in an orderly sequence to
corroborate what Theophilus already knows. The Gospel of Luke was written about 60 AD, meaning that the only other Gospel was Mark's (55 AD), which is relatively short and not quite as extensive as the other three. And even at that, even John plainly says that not everything Jesus did was written down (John 21:25).
What, then, are we to conclude when we see human tradition being given an equal rating with Gods inspired Word, and when, even though contrary to the Bible, tradition is accepted and followed instead of the Bible? Could such a situation be compatible with true worship?
The dichotomy here is that you see Catholic Tradition as the "traditions of men", similar to the Pharisaic traditions which Jesus condemned;
we see Tradition as the fully inspired Word of God, equal to Scripture. The Holy Spirit inspired the Apostles to recall everything that Jesus taught them (John 16:13-15); some of these they wrote down, some of them they did not. But simply because it wasn't written down does not negate the Divine origin of the teaching itself---it still came from God.
I realize how hard it is for a non-Catholic to assimilate this idea, since you have been schooled forever in the concept of "Scripture alone"; but you have to realize that "Scripture alone" is a fairly new phenomenon, which has only been around for a little less than 500 years.
Prior to that, such an idea did not exist. It also has to be borne in mind that the man who popularized the concept (Martin Luther), only did so because he needed
something to use as a rule of faith and doctrine to replace the authority of the Church. He didn't want to use
himself, lest he just end up being a Protestant pope, and he refused to use Tradition, since Tradition contained a lot of the doctrines he personally was having trouble with. So he settled for Scripture, and so has every Protestant ever since.
But it was not so from the very beginning.
Your right about Marian theology not being fully understood by those outside the Catholic Faith. Please could you explain what exactly is meant by "Imaculate Conception". I'd rather get your veiws than those of a third party, avoid missunderstandings.
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was preserved, by a special action of God, from Original Sin. The reason for this has to do with Christ, not Mary. Since children always inherit the characteristics of both parents, it was necessary to preserve Mary from Original Sin so that Christ would not contract it as well from His mother's side of the family. You may now say, "Why couldn't God have simply chosen to preserve
Christ from Original Sin? Why bother with Mary?" and that's a good question. The reason involves a great deal of theological explanation, but stripped to its most basic form, it boils down to the fact that Jesus is God, and nothing impure may come into contact with God; it was therefore only fitting that God Himself, in the incarnate form of Christ, be borne into the world in a sinless vessel, rather than a stained, sinful, impure one.
That argument may not suffice for you, and that's fine; nobody says you have to agree with it. But I think the relevant point in all this is that even though Mary was preserved from sin, that does
not mean that she is some sort of goddess or demi-goddess. She was fully human as we all are, and she needed a Savior the same as we all do. The only difference is that Mary was
preserved from sin by Christ, while the rest of us are
cleansed of sin by Christ. And again, this preservation was for
His benefit, not hers.
By the way, Thank you for your veiws on these matters, some are very interesting arguments (In the nice way) that I've not encountered before. The advantage of getting it first hand from those who practice their faith.
You're welcome. I hope it helps.