Remember that the Bible is not the end-all, be-all of the Word of God.
Perhaps lozeerose could make a positive case for why he thinks the Word of God is also found elsewhere. And how that fits in with Mark 7:1-13. And why the Apostle Paul never directed us to this other Word of God, but only to Scr.
I see no problem with Mark 7:1-13. The Pharisees clearly exceeded God’s commandments by adding to the Sacred Tradition of Old Covenant things that were not intended by God. You should be weary of Mark 7:1-13 because those Protestant doctrines that do not originate from the Church (Trinity) are actually traditions of men, e.g., Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc.
The Jews relied plenty on oral tradition and what scripture they had, namely the Septuagint, did not have a defined Canon and in fact had some books that were later deemed by the Church as not inspired. Also, there are not two Words of God just one – one that was transmitted both “by word and by letter.”
Does lozeerose prove that the word of mouth is different in content than the letter mentioned? That the tradition mentioned there is distinct from the Scripture?
I can try…John 21:25, “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” And then there are Mk 16:15; Mt 23:2-3; Acts 20:35 (Paul quotes a saying of Jesus not found in the Gospels); Rom 10:17; 1Cor 11:2, 15:1-2; 2Thess 3:6; 2Tim 1:13, 2:2 and 1Pet 1:25.
Rhology: If you are suggesting that we accept the RCC a priori as the infallible interpreter, please let me know why I should. After all, there’s lots of competition out there for that spot! EOC
lozeerose: You must look at history.
1) How would that help? Do I have any reason to think that lozeerose wouldn’t simply say “you will note that history does not (cannot) contradict Church teachings”?
No other church can trace their lines of succession all the way back to Jesus Himself. That history reveals the Church of the Apostles is the same Catholic Church of today. As convert John Henry Cardinal Newman once said, “To be steeped in history is to cease being Protestant.”
2) Which is how all of these bodies I mentioned operate. Bring up historical teachings that disagree with their modern dogma, and alluvasudden they’re written out, assigned to “just a private theologian” status. Or part of the “Great Apostasy” or something. And it all makes sense – if the modern body is infallible, then history, just like Scripture, says what the modern infallible body says it means. No means of correction is possible.
By definition the infallible dogmas and teachings of the Church do not require a means for correction because none is required. Truth is truth. Unfortunately, Protestant theology and doctrines are completely fallible and full of holes. Thus, Protestants deny themselves the Fullness of Truth due to the age-old sin of disobedience and denial of His ultimate authority and will – which may differ from your own. What is ironic is that keeping to Protestant doctrines requires them to concede to the fact that the Catholic Church may be correct yet they always rule her out but they themselves do not have any means of self-correction with the exception of fads like the Rapture.
Remember I mentioned above that I pointed out where Irenæus disagreed with lozeerose’s statement, and lozeerose drops him in the trash can – ” I will comment on this by stating that just because St. Irenaues was a Father of the Church, it does not make him or his writings infallible. Saints are not infallible, just holy.”
That’s why it’s intellectually dishonest for someone in lozeerose’s position to tell me to verify RCC’s claims against history.
How so. Just there will always be persons within and without of the Church that will say and act contrary to Church teaching. This does not refute the fact that the Church is the divinely instituted Bride of Christ and the New Israel and has the authority and protection to teach infallibly.