Answering An Atlanta Bishop
The above heading is the exact words of an article in the Columbus, Ga., daily paper. They are the words of the "Most Rev. Francis E. Hyland, J.C.D." auxiliary bishop of the Atlanta and Savannah diocese.
This article is meant to be a review of some of the things said by the bishop. He says, "If the Bible is God's written word, oral tradition massed through 20 centuries must be regarded as equally binding on mankind." This statement is not new with the Catholics. He continues, "Contention that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the sole channel through which men can know God's will is incorrect." Again, "The Catholic church firmly believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God"...the various human writers of the books of the Bible were moved under direct inspiration of God to write, and He guided them while they were writing. The Bible is therefore "God's written message to mankind."
Now, the bishop says, "oral traditions are equally binding on us as is the Bible." He is either ignorant of what the Bible says about TRADITIONS or, he doesn't believe what it says. Listen to Jesus . . . "Why do ye transgress the commandments of God because of your TRADITIONS?"—Matt. 15:4. Notice verses 6-9 . . . "Ye have made void the word of God because of your TRADITIONS" and HE called them hypocrites and said their worship was vain; that their TRADITIONS were not the word of God but the precepts of men. This is a fair sample of the respect Jesus had for TRADITIONS. In Mark 7:9, which is Mark's record of the same incident, Jesus said . . . "Ye reject the commandments of God that ye may keep your TRADITION." How true of Catholics today. They like these to whom Jesus spoke, do not hesitate to reject the commandments of God to keep their traditions.
But, hear Paul . . . "Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the TRADITION of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Col. 2:8) This same warning is apropos today and if Catholics believed the Bible to be God's inspired word they would not "reject" Paul's teaching to keep their TRADITIONS. Again, in II Thess. 3:6 Paul says, "not after the tradition which they received of us." Here we need to consider the meaning of the word Tradition. It means, "a law handed down from one generation to another." This law may either 'be oral or written. In this passage it means the tradition, or law, they had received from Paul, Silas and Timothy. (II Thess. 1:1)
In chapter 2 and verses 3 and 4 Paul gives a description of the rise of the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope who "sets himself forth as God" (is he not called "His Holiness, Lord GOD, the Pope?) and in the passage under consideration he warns against the TRADITIONS of this ecclesiastical hierarchy (Roman Catholic Church) and tells them to do according to the tradition, or law, received of US (Paul, Silas and Timothy . . . Chapter 1:1). It was thus safe to follow these because Paul was inspired and he had taught Silas and Timothy. Question: "Is there any difference in what these taught and what Catholics teach?" The answer is, "MUCH." There is a great difference therefore, between the traditions, or law, as taught by Paul and Catholic TRADITION.
In chapter 2:15 Paul tells them to "hold to the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of "OURS" (Paul's epistle and, or word, and the words of Silas and Timothy ). Catholics need to pay some attention to the words "ours" in chapter 2:15 and "us" in chapter 3:6. Let us now hear Peter on the subject of TRADITIONS . . . "knowing that ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from your vain manner of life received by TRADITION from your fathers." (I Pet. 1:18) Peter says the TRADITIONS OF THE FATHERS is not what redeems or saves us, but Catholics are relying on the very thing that Peter says "doesn't save us" to save. If TRADITIONS are as binding on us, as the Bible, why is Peter (and incidentally he is supposed to be the first Pope of the Catholic church) telling them not to rely and depend upon them? I said, "supposed Pope" there is, of course, no foundation for such.
One more passage on the word TRADITION and that covers all the Bible says on the word. Paul, in Gal. 1:14 says . . . "being more exceedingly zealous for the TRADITIONS of my fathers." Catholics are (as Paul before his conversion) more zealous for the TRADITIONS of their fathers than for the Bible, God's holy word. This, I believe, answers the "bishop's" affirmation concerning the "TRADITIONS" massed through twenty centuries." But, if what Jesus, Paul and Peter taught, in the Bible, is true on this matter, the bishop's denial of the "Bible being the sole channel through which men can know God's will" is a denial of what Jesus, Peter and Paul taught. And, while affirming to "firmly believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God" he at the same time denies its teaching. The bishop is very much confused. The truth, friends, is that Catholics do not "believe the Bible is the inspired word of God." If they did they would not "go beyond that which is written" therein. (I Cor. 4:6)
Again, the bishop says, "Our savior taught his disciples for three full years, yet only a few thousand of his spoken words are recorded . . . From this it is abundantly clear that not all of Christ's words which were spoken to the disciples were set down. The Bible itself proves this . . . (here he quotes the last verse of the gospel according to St. John) "and there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." Now, the bishop uses this passage to make way for his books of TRADITION. The passage says absolutely nothing about the unrecorded WORDS of Christ but unrecorded DEEDS (SIGNS . . . John 20:30, 31) There were many other things which Jesus did, as the passage cited by the bishop states . . . John 21:25, but, the THINGS mentioned in the passage were SIGNS and not laws, or TRADITIONS, as the bishop seems to think. The passage therefore does not hint at justifying Catholic TRADITIONS. So, come again, bishop! True, there were many other THINGS, or DEEDS, which Jesus did but a sufficient number of these signs were recorded that we may believe, and this done, his objective was reached. No, John 21:35 does not make room for the bishop's books of TRADITIONS: It has nothing to do with the sayings (WORDS) or, "Oral Traditions or laws," of Jesus, but his signs.
He says further, "the apostles of Christ passed the great treasure of the Savior's spoken instructions on to the church, which has preserved them through the ages." This, of course, is true but the New Testament is a record of the Savior's spoken word. If Catholics think there are other books, or records, containing God's will to man, other than the Bible, why do they call the Old and New Testaments only, "THE BIBLE?" If other records are binding why not call them Bible too? The word means "book of books." Of course the Savior's spoken instructions was passed on, by the apostles, to the church (and the bishop means the Roman Catholic Church) but, I challenge any Catholic to show one vestige of proof from the BIBLE, that Catholic's have preserved the scriptures, for us. Out of the three oldest manuscripts, the Catholics have one; they have never had access to the other TWO and yet they have the effrontery to say that "they" gave us the Bible. It just simply isn't so,