GMS said:
I am not sure what you mean that the doctrine “cancels itself outâ€Â. I believe the concept of Scripture alone, is saying that the traditions of man and etc., must coincide with God’s Word.
You are correct. Any teaching that is not in line with the Scriptures cannot be legitimate Apostolic Teachings, because both Apostolic Traditions and Scriptures are from God, as Paul said in Galatians 1.
What happens, in my opinion, is that some of my Protestant brothers disagree with how us Catholics read the Scriptures. Thus, they believe they see contradicting theology emiting from the Catholic Church, because they already have their own ideas on how to read the Bible. Now, if this were the case - that the Church contradicts the Bible - how could the Church claim to be guided by God? ONE single contradiction proven would bring down the entire claim. Thus, we really do believe that our doctrines are found, implicitly or explicitly, within the Bible - given the Apostolic way of looking at Scriptures.
It seems the first Christians also had this problem. "How do we read and understand Scriptures correctly"? This is where Apostolic Succession became a force that guaranteed proper interpretation. St. Ireneaus wrote in "Against Heresies" in 180 AD that it was paramount that a community could trace a succession of bishops to the Apostles - something the Gnostics could not. He derided the Gnostic's method of interpreting the very same Scriptures and coming up with the entire panalopy of godlets and dieties. Nothing has changed there as men continue to read what they want from the Scriptures, often in total contradiction to the intent. Thus, even in 180 AD, the Christians were saying that only while reading the Scriptures "within the mind of the Church" can we hope to receive God's true revelation.
GMS said:
The on going debate amongst Catholicism and Protestantism, is, what constitutes God’s Word.
That's true. It goes beyond the written Word, because God's Word came in the flesh and presented revelation to us through the Apostles in both oral and written form. It is a presumption that everything we need to know is in the Bible, as the Bible nowhere makes that claim. It is very important to maintain the oral tradition because THIS is what ensures that the bible is read correctly.
GMS said:
The real issue with Catholics like yourself who have a understanding of Catholic dogma, is the need to elevate “tradition and clergy†above what I think is reasonable in Christendom.
Tradition and clergy are unrightfuly bad words in the mind of the Protestant who desires to, in his mind, remove all impediments between himself and God. However, us Catholics consider these leaders and our tradition as means of COMING CLOSER to God. We don't see priests as impediments with our relationship with God.
I teach people desiring to become Catholic. They have never received the sacrament of Confession, and most come from a Protestant background where they believe that they have this relationship with the abstract principle of God. However, in EVERY case, I find that these people, after going through their first confession to God through the priest, they feel they have experienced something emotional, something real, something they have not felt before. The sacrament is something visible. Something tangeant. And if one has faith that God forgives through the visible priest's words and actions, it is an amazing thing. You feel a weight lifted from your shoulder. Modern psychologists tell us that confessing to another person is necessary for the human psyche. And thus, Jesus gave His disciples the ministry of reconciliation - so that men and women could confess their sins to God through a visible person and EXPERIENCE God's love through the sacrament.
This is just one example. Now, Protestants don't understand the need for this priest. "why can't I go to God directly?" Well, God has given us this ministry for a reason - to heal us. I have seen its effects - it truly is healing, unlike the "go in your closet and talk to God" confession. It is wonderful. I thank God for it. I don't feel the priest is interfering with my relationship with Christ, but making it MORE uplifting.
I am not saying this to begin a discussion on confession, but to show you that our "ways" are the way the Church has always read the Scriptures and understood the Apostles' teachings. The proof of this, in the end, is in the writings of the 100-200 AD period. That would be a pretty good indication of what the Bible intended to mean, don't you think? After studying what these people wrote in the first few generations after Christ, I am convinced that the Catholic Church is correctly protecting the INTENT of the Bible. Some will disagree with that - but other theologies are innovations of 1500 years later. It becomes obvious that people can read what they want from the Scriptures if they begin with an idea and then look for the proof texts.
If someone wants the correct intent of Scriptures, they should read the Christians' own writings from the first century. Those men and women who went to the lions for their faith, who loved others, even enemies, without expecting return. The Spirit who led them to act in such a manner did not guide them into falsehood.
Regards