Audio only:
What exactly does it mean when Christ accuses the Pharisees of abandoning the commandments of God in favor of traditions of men? What are the implications for us? Karlo Broussard explores the proper place for “traditions of men.”
Cy Kellett:
Karlo Broussard, apologist here at Catholic Answers. Thanks for being with us.
Karlo Broussard:
Cy Kellet, thanks for having me.
Cy Kellett:
It’s always good when you’re here for focus.
Karlo Broussard:
Amen to that.
Cy Kellett:
And one of the things we can focus on with you because you’ve spent a lot of time in scholarly research and writing about is the different ways that Catholics and Protestants approach the faith. And so to try to improve the dialogue there.
Karlo Broussard:
Improve the conversation, amen.
Cy Kellett:
And your latest book. I just happen to have it right here, Meeting the Protestant Response, how to answer common comebacks to Catholic arguments available now at shop.catholic.com.
Karlo Broussard:
Ooh, that was nice. Good job.
Cy Kellett:
Thank you. I worked on that hard on that. I might do it again later. Okay. But this is the second kind of part of an ongoing kind of dialogue in books that you’re having. So the first one is Meeting the Protestant Challenge and then this one’s Meeting the Protestant Response. So why don’t we start with explaining what we’re going to be doing today based on that.
Karlo Broussard:
So in order to understand the new book Meeting the Protestant Response it’s good to contrast it with the older one Meeting the Protestant Challenge, that book took 50 challenges that took the form, addressed 50 challenges that took the form how can the church teach X when the Bible says Y? Alleged contradictions between what we believe and what the Bible teaches? Classic example, how can the church teach Mary was a perpetual virgin when the Bible says Jesus had brothers? So I went through 50 of those and addressed those in order to show that there is no incompatibility or conflict or contradiction between the particular belief and the Bible passage appealed to. So that book was dedicated to, or the purpose of the book, it was directed at defending the beliefs, our Catholic beliefs. In contrast, the new book Meeting the Protestant Response is directed at defending our Catholic arguments.
Cy Kellett:
I gotcha.
Karlo Broussard:
So this is articulating sort of the major biblical arguments that we put forward as Catholics in support of our Catholic beliefs and then defending those Catholic arguments, those biblical arguments against Protestant comebacks to those arguments. Basically answering the question, what do Protestants say in response to these classical arguments that we’ve been given for our beliefs? And it takes on a new significance because as you knows, our Protestant brothers and sisters operate on the doctrine of sola scriptura. They’re only going to believe that which is explicitly found and proclaimed in sacred scripture. And so in order to persuade our Protestant brothers and sisters of our beliefs, it’s important that when we can, we appeal to the scriptural text in order to provide that biblical evidence.
But our Protestant friends are not going to accept our Catholic reading of those texts if they’re already convinced of their Protestant alternative reading of the text. And that’s what this book is addressing and analyzing and looking at. How do Protestants read these texts that we always appeal to in justification for our beliefs and think they are so clear?
Cy Kellett:
Right.
Karlo Broussard:
One of the things that I point out in the introduction of the book, the reason why the idea of writing the book came to me was because I was constantly encountering folks who just get started in apologetics and they’re learning all these arguments and they get so excited. And then they’re like, Karlo these texts are so clear why don’t Protestants see it?
Cy Kellett:
See it.
Karlo Broussard:
Right. Yeah. Well, there’s an answer to that question and it is not that they’re just closed minded and stubborn.
Cy Kellett:
It would be great if that was the answer though.
Karlo Broussard:
Irrational.
Cy Kellett:
It makes it so much easier.
Karlo Broussard:
But they have reasonable responses. The responses are not irrational. They have reasons that they give to justify their Protestantism in the face of these Catholic arguments. And it’s important that we give them a voice and that we as Catholics understand what their reasons are. And as I point out in the book that generates a renewed respect for our Protestant brothers and sisters, which can sort of serve as a safeguard or protect us from becoming anti Protestant. We don’t like it when Protestants are anti-Catholic.
Cy Kellett:
No.
Karlo Broussard:
And so I think it’s important that we check ourselves that we don’t become anti Protestant. And this is a good way of doing that, to hear them out, hear what they’re saying. So in the book I’m quoting Protestant apologists and their-
Cy Kellett:
That’s Protestants calling.
Karlo Broussard:
… and their alternative readings of the text. And then of course I show why ultimately their comebacks do not succeed in refuting the Catholic argument.
Cy Kellett:
So this to me is a very respectful way of engaging in this. And it also defeats a kind of habit that we can accidentally get into in the apologetics world. I think, which is the search for the killer argument. This is the perfect argument, because not all arguments work on everybody. The process of reasoning is not just, somebody shows you the perfect argument. That’s very rare that that would-
Karlo Broussard:
Sure. I mean, we can always analyze arguments being, some are better than others with regard to principles of reason, principles of revelation, et cetera. And even with regard to effectiveness, we can analyze arguments which are more effective for others, but no argument is going to be a guarantee that somebody’s going to be persuaded. That’s God’s business. I mean, it’s only going to be due to the grace that God gives the mind in order to see the truth. I mean, I know in my own experience, there are times when I didn’t see it and by God’s grace, all of a sudden I see it. And so that’s God’s business, whether the person to whom we’re ministering is actually going to see the truth or not. But we are a call to share the arguments that we do have in order to articulate what we believe and why we believe it. Especially within this context, rooted in sacred scripture for our Protestant brothers and sisters to come to see, because we do acknowledge the Bible to be the word of God. And that’s something we have in common.
Cy Kellett:
All right. So you got a lot of these in the two books, these various points where we need to have better dialogue. Between Catholics and Protestants, you could do Mary, you could do purgatory, you could do the priesthood. You could, I mean, it was on and on and on. but probably at the core is, I mean, just a few things that if we agreed on those, we could get all the rest straight. And among those is this idea of scripture and tradition, like you said, right from the beginning. Well our Protestant friends, it’s sola scriptura. Well we’re as Catholics raised from little babies, it’d be there’s scripture and tradition and the Magesterium, this is how we know that. So help us out with that one. What the Catholic argument is, what some Protestant responses are and then how we respond to those responses.
Karlo Broussard:
So this is an example that we were pulling from the book Meeting the Protestant Response in the section on scriptures and tradition. There’s really not a lot of scriptural passages that we often go to say for salvation, there’ll be like multiple passages that we have to analyze. When it comes to scripture and tradition. There’s really one key text. And that’s 2 Thessalonians 2:15, where St. Paul writes to stand firm in the traditions, stand firm and hold to the traditions, which you were taught by us either by word of mouth or by letter. As Catholics, we have traditionally appealed to that text in order to show that for Paul, we are bound by both scripture, what is written and traditions, sacred tradition, the traditions that have been handed down by word of mouth. And that those are the two ways in which divine revelation, from the Father to Jesus handed over to the apostles are transmitted to us.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah, this is, I’m sorry to interrupt you, but you mentioned that thing where Catholics go, “This is so obvious, why can’t you see it?” This is one where you’re going to hear a lot of Catholics go, “Come on. It says right in the Bible, scripture and tradition.”
Karlo Broussard:
Right, right. So obviously many of our Protestant friends do not accept that reading of the text. So what is the comeback here? Well, there’s really one, there’s two categories of comebacks, basically. One category is a category of comebacks that are directed at the Catholic claim that there are oral traditions distinct from sacred scripture. So these comebacks will positively claim, they will make the claim, that the traditions that Paul is talking about are identical to what is put down in writing. And so with the death of the last apostle, we no longer have a need for looking to their apostolic tradition or preaching because all we have is the sacred scriptures. We have their writings, but what is in the writings is identical to what was being preached and what was being preached is identical to what is in the writings.
Cy Kellett:
Well, that solves a problem, doesn’t it. If that were true-
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right. That’s a comeback to our Catholic understanding of the text. Now the second category of comebacks is directed at a particular inference that we as Catholics make from this distinction between the traditions handed down by word of mouth and written epistle. So this category of comebacks will concede that there would have been oral traditions distinct from scripture and/or traditions distinct from scripture, but challenge the inference we’re making namely that these traditions are binding on us and are infallible on a par with sacred scripture.
Cy Kellett:
I see.
Karlo Broussard:
But for our purposes in our conversation, we’re going to put that category of comebacks off to the side for now. And just look at the comeback that states the traditions are identical to the sacred writings, right?
Cy Kellett:
Okay.
Karlo Broussard:
And then that’s the general claim. And then there are a couple of specific reasons that some Protestant apologists will give to justify that claim. And those actually constitute distinct comebacks from the general claim. So the general claim, the traditions are identical to the sacred writings, what should we say in response to that? Well, first of all, it merely assumes the identity without any evidence. There’s no evidence from Jesus, the apostles or the New Testament that states that which was handed down by word of mouth is identical to the sacred writings. There’s no evidence to support that claim.
Cy Kellett:
So scripture itself doesn’t make the claim that scripture is carrying all of the oral tradition.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right. Now that serves to be a problem for our Christian brothers who hold to sola scriptura.
Cy Kellett:
Right.
Karlo Broussard:
Because sola scriptura, according to sola scriptura, if a proposition for belief is not found in the sacred page, we ought not to believe it. Well, the proposition itself, the oral traditions are identical to the sacred writings, that proposition itself is not found in the Bible, but yet many of our Protestant friends who make this comeback are believing that very thing, namely the oral traditions that Paul speaks of are identical to what is in writings. That’s a proposition for belief, but that’s not found in the scripture. So that’s a problem for those who hold to sola scriptura. Claiming to believe something, namely traditions are identical to scripture, but not in scripture, which undermines the doctrine of sola scriptura. So that’s at least one belief that they’re believing that’s not found in the Bible. You see?
Cy Kellett:
Yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
Now a second response or a second answer to the general claim is that there actually is evidence that there are some oral traditions that Paul has in mind that are distinct from the sacred writings not identified with and in the sacred writing. So for example, in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-6, Paul speaks of the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition. And then he says this quote, “You know what is restraining him,” the man of lawlessness, “now.” He’s telling the Thessalonians you know what is restraining this man, the antichrist, right? And he’s listing this among many other things that Paul shared with them when he visited them in person, but not once does Paul identify in his writings what is restraining the man of lawlessness or the son of perdition.
That’s an apostolic tradition. That’s an oral tradition that is not identical to or identified in the sacred writings. So that would be one example of an oral tradition that is distinct from the sacred writings.
Cy Kellett:
Yes.
Karlo Broussard:
Thus refuting the general claim-
Cy Kellett:
That’s they’re all identical.
Karlo Broussard:
… that they’re all identical. Here’s another example for you, the canon of scripture itself.
Cy Kellett:
Yes. Right.
Karlo Broussard:
That list of books, both Jewish and Christian, that we must accept to be the inspired word of God. The canon of scripture itself is something that all Christians adhere to. They have disagreement about the number of the canon, but regardless of whatever, a number of books is in your canon, that list is not found in sacred scripture. So the belief that these number of books are inspired by God is a tradition handed down to us from we claim from the first century, we as Catholics, Protestants will disagree with us on that. But nevertheless, it’s a tradition, hand it down from the apostles that is not found in the sacred writing. So that’s an example of a tradition that is not found in the writings and thus is distinct from the writings and therefore not all of the oral traditions that Paul has in mind is identical to the sacred text or the sacred writings. And finally, here’s another example, the belief that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle, that is a belief that Christians hold to, both Catholic and Protestant.
Cy Kellett:
There’s no new revelation coming of a general nature.
Karlo Broussard:
Absolutely. But that belief itself Cy, is not found in the sacred writings or scripture. So that’s yet another oral tradition coming from the early Christian age. They’re the apostles that we hold to, both Catholic and Protestant, that is distinct from the sacred scriptures. So these examples serve to be evidence that would refute the general claim that the oral traditions that Paul has in mind are simply identical to what is put down in writing. And that what is put down in writing is simply identical to what was being proclaimed in the apostolic preaching. So those would be a couple of ways or answers that we could give, ways of response or answers that we could give to meet this general comeback, that the traditions are just identical to the sacred writings. And so there’s really no importance in this distinction between what is handed down in written form and in unwritten form that Paul’s talking about in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
Cy Kellett:
Okay, so now the Protestants have to believe, right. Now you’ve sealed it and you’ve made the perfect argument. No, there are people today that are making this argument, prominent among them James White.
Karlo Broussard:
Yes.
Cy Kellett:
And I imagine James White might have something to say about what you just said. So you want to take a stab at it?
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. So notice how initially I was just responding to the general claim, you might say the conclusion, that our Protestant friend is making, we can assess just the conclusion itself and begin to see that it’s problematic, but White actually in his book, the Roman Catholic Controversy provides a reason to justify the claim that the oral traditions are simply identified with the sacred writings. And the reason that he gives is that Paul is only talking about one single topic here, and that is the gospel because Paul actually, before verse 15, is talking about the Thessalonians being saved through quote, “belief in the truth to which they were called through the gospel.” And so White makes the claim that the traditions that Paul is referring to here in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 are restricted to the gospel, which he identifies with the sacred writings.
So if these traditions in Paul’s mind are simply that which is the gospel, and we acknowledge that the gospel is put down in writing, the gospel message is put down in writing, well, then it would follow from that these oral traditions are simply identical to what is put down in writing. And thus there’s no need for this distinction between scripture and tradition.
Cy Kellett:
So the gospel in other words, is contained in the gospels basically.
Karlo Broussard:
Not necessarily the gospel, [inaudible 00:17:59] the gospel message being put down into writing.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah, yeah. So that would be the New Testament. Yeah. There it is.
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah, the New Testament as a whole, correct. But one way that we can respond as I point out in the book, is that the term the gospel is ambiguous, even in White’s argument here. So we could ask the question, does the gospel refer to the simple charagma and sort of the restricted view of the gospel, a restricted sense where it’s just sort of these subset of Christian truths that are the basic Christian message about God, his son Jesus Christ, and the coming of the kingdom and the need to repent. Is that the sense of the gospel that Paul is talking about? Or does Paul mean by the gospel a wider sense where it’s referring to the whole body of Christian truth and what we must accept as divine revelation.
So it could go either way. It’s a bit ambiguous. So let’s think about, well, let’s save argument’s sake, it’s the gospel in the restricted sense. And that the gospel just simply refers to a limited subset of beliefs that we call the gospel, the basic apostolic charagma of God, the coming of his son Jesus Christ and the coming of the kingdom, right?
Cy Kellett:
Yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
Well, if that’s what Paul means by the gospel, then Paul in his own mind does not think that the oral traditions are restricted to that. And here’s the reason why in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, Paul commands the Thessalonians in the name of Jesus Christ to hold to, stay away from the brethren who are living in idleness and not in accord with the traditions. Okay.
Cy Kellett:
Yes.
Karlo Broussard:
All right. Now, what is it? What is the idleness that these individuals are guilty of? Well, verse 10 tells us, Paul says, “If anyone would not work, let him not eat.” Now notice the tradition here that we’re bound to live in accord with in the name of Jesus Christ, so it’s binding, it’s authoritative, it’s infallible. That’s an important point. But notice this is a matter of Christian ethics and how we are to live our lives. Well, in Paul’s mind that tradition concerning Christian ethics and work is not a part of the quote, unquote “gospel” in the restricted sense of the apostolic charagma, because in Galatians 2:2 and 7, Paul speaks of the gospel and it’s clear that he does not have Christian ethics in mind. It’s the restricted sense of the gospel, the apostolic preaching, the good news that we go out and preach to people to try to get them to convert. We don’t go out to somebody who’s never heard of Jesus and start talking about you got to do your work, man. Right?
Cy Kellett:
Right. Yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
That comes later on, right?
Cy Kellett:
Yeah. Okay.
Karlo Broussard:
In the wide sense of the gospel, yeah, sure. That’s a part of it, but in the restricted sense, it’s not. And so if Paul means by the gospel in 2 Thessalonians 2:14, 13-14, I think the verses are, he does not have in mind the oral traditions, the oral traditions, he’s not restricting the oral traditions to that restricted gospel. So in Paul’s mind, on the restricted view of the gospel, the traditions are distinct from what he’s referring to as the gospel there. So why, on that reading of the gospel, White’s argument would fall apart. Because the oral traditions that Paul speaks of would not be restricted to that gospel understood in this subset of Christian truths of the apostolic charagma.
Cy Kellett:
Right. Paul is pointing us towards something much wider.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right. The oral traditions would refer to something distinct from this restricted view of quote, unquote, “the gospel.”
Cy Kellett:
Gotcha. Okay. Yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. Now let’s think about if the gospel meant the wider view, let’s say Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:14 meant the gospel in the wide sense, the whole entire body of Christian truths that we must accept as divine revelation. What can we infer from that about the oral traditions? Well, even with this, it’s not clear that Paul would want to restrict the oral traditions, even to that body of Christian truths that’s considered to be the deposit of faith at that time because Paul’s writing in a way that would suggest that if there were future traditions to come about, even within the apostolic age, after the time he’s writing this very epistle, then those traditions would be just as binding in the name of Jesus on the Thessalonians as he articulates in 2 Thessalonians 3:6.
So you have a body of Christian truth at the time Paul is writing this letter. Paul is writing as if maybe there might be future traditions to come immediately thereafter that would be just as binding. And so therefore traditions not being confined or restricted to the gospel, even in this white sense. So even think about this too, Paul only spent three weeks with the Thessalonians. So it’s reasonable to think that there would need to be supplemental traditions, right, as he’s moving forward. And as the Christian faith is moving forward in the apostolic age, in order to supplement what he taught for only three weeks. So even if we take the gospel in the wide sense, the entire body of Christian truth of divine revelation at the time Paul is writing this letter, there still may be room for more binding infallible traditions to come about within the age of the apostles that would be distinct from this, the gospel that he’s referring to here in the immediate text. The bottom line being is that we have reason to think that even in Paul’s mind when he is talking about the oral traditions, he’s not intending that to be identical to what he calls quote, unquote “the gospel.”
Cy Kellett:
Got it. Yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
Now here’s another way to respond to White’s argument here is that some teachings that we would consider to be a part of the gospel in the wide sense, body of Christian truths that we need to believe in order to be saved, some of those Christian truths actually may have been revealed after Paul writes this epistle, still within the age of the apostles, such as Mary’s bodily assumption. At the time Paul is writing this letter to Thessalonians, Mary may not have been bodily assumed yet.
Cy Kellett:
It’s hard if you’re just still alive walking around.
Karlo Broussard:
So that would be a particular dogma or a revealed truth that would not be a part of the body of Christian truths, the gospel, at the time Paul is writing the letter, but may eventually become a part of the body of Christian truths that is divinely revealed before the end of the age of the apostles. Does that make sense?
Cy Kellett:
It does.
Karlo Broussard:
So when Paul’s talking about oral traditions that we need to hold fast to, the idea that he’s restricting that only to the gospel, even in the wide sense, it doesn’t follow from that there are no revealed truths outside of what he’s referring to as the gospel in the immediate context, because some may come after he writes the epistle that could be added into the gospel. And then finally, and the reason why I bring up the Bible assumption, because that’s one example that White refers to, right?
Cy Kellett:
Yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
These teachings about Mary, that’s not part of the gospel in the wide sense. And he also brings up papal infallibility. But that just begs the question because we, as Catholics would say, it is a part of the gospel in the wide sense that Paul is referring to there.
Cy Kellett:
Okay. Karlo, so that’s one reason. You said earlier that there was another reason why people make this argument or another support that they give for this argument. So can you give us that one?
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. So the general claim being that the oral traditions are identical to the sacred writings, that’s sort of the general comeback to our Catholic argument here. Another reason that it’s given for that claim is that Paul says, rather than Paul saying, hold fast to the traditions handed down by written epistle and word of mouth, it says, “hold fast to the traditions handed down by written epistle or word of mouth.” So the argument is if Paul intended for both, what’s handed down in written form and in unwritten form to be equal in value and have the same binding force, he would’ve said, hold fast to the traditions handed down in the epistle and the oral traditions, but he doesn’t say, and the oral traditions he says or the oral traditions and the Greek [foreign language 00:27:06] Right. And so one apologist by the name of Eric Svenson in his book Evangelical Answers, a Critique of Current Roman Catholic Apologetics. He therefore concludes that the content of these means of communication, written epistle, oral traditions is the same. So because Paul says-
Cy Kellett:
It’s just two modes. Did you get it this way or did you get it that way? But it’s the same thing.
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. So because Paul says either written epistle, or preaching oral traditions Svenson concludes therefore that the content of the two is the same. All right. If it would’ve been distinct, Paul would’ve said and, right [inaudible 00:27:48]
Cy Kellett:
I have to say that’s a heavy burden for one conjunction to bear.
Karlo Broussard:
Interesting, yeah. So in response, it’s important to point out that Svenson goes wrong here in equating the value of the means of transmitting information with the identity of the content that’s transmitted through the means. Okay. So for example, my wife and I, we might be going out on a date and we might tell the kids, “Okay, whatever we tell you, whether by in person right now, or when we call you later by phone, you have to obey. Whether we tell you in person or by phone, you got to obey what we tell you.” Does it necessarily follow from that that what we tell them by phone later on in the course of the night is identical to what we tell them in person?
Cy Kellett:
It does not.
Karlo Broussard:
It does not.
Cy Kellett:
No.
Karlo Broussard:
But that’s the logic of Svenson’s argument here.
Cy Kellett:
I see, I see. Yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
That Paul is saying, hold fast to the traditions either by written epistle or by word of mouth and therefore concludes the content of the two ways of transmitting the information is going to be the same. But that’s absurd. When we look at the example that I just gave, because my wife and I can call them later on in the evening while we’re on the date and tell them something different than what we told them in person.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah. I forgot to turn off the sprinklers. Go outside and turn them off.
Karlo Broussard:
Go turn them on, yeah, or turn them off. Or I forgot to turn the stove off. Turn it off. And that information would be just as binding as the information I told them in person, although the information itself is different.
Cy Kellett:
Would be different.
Karlo Broussard:
Yes. The content is different. So that’s the first way that we could respond to the comeback here. And secondly [foreign language 00:29:40] which is the Greek word for or, it actually translates as if. So, whenever you look at the Greek, “Hold fast to the traditions that you have been handed down by word of mouth [foreign language 00:29:56] or written epistle,” or written epistle [foreign language 00:29:58] word of mouth, but [foreign language 00:30:00] is used both times. And so it literally reads hold fast to the traditions if by written epistle, if by word of mouth.
Cy Kellett:
Oh, oh.
Karlo Broussard:
Now, that’s serving to signal alternatives in a series.
Cy Kellett:
Sure.
Karlo Broussard:
And so in English we would say either, or right?
Cy Kellett:
Yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
And so what Paul is saying here, doesn’t suggest that the content of what is transmitted in word of mouth is going to be identical to the content transmitted in written epistle.
Cy Kellett:
Got it.
Karlo Broussard:
He’s affirming the legitimacy of the means of both means of transmitting the information that regardless of the information that comes to you, whether by word of mouth or by written epistle, both are going to be binding on you. Not that the content or the information is identical, but that both means of communicating the information you’re going to be bound to adhere to.
Cy Kellett:
If you got it this way, or if you got it that way.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right.
Cy Kellett:
You’re bound.
Karlo Broussard:
Regardless of what the content is.
Cy Kellett:
What it is. Yeah. It doesn’t say anything about content.
Karlo Broussard:
[inaudible 00:31:10] or different. You’re going to be bound by that content even if it’s transmitted by word of mouth, as distinct from what is transmitted by written epistle. Finally, to get back to what I said, something earlier, just this idea that it’s the same content and the word of mouth and the written epistle, it just simply doesn’t fit the historical context because remember, Paul spent three weeks with Thessalonians and it’s unlikely that everything that he transmitted to them by word of mouth for three weeks is going to be found in the written epistles. It’s very unlikely that there’s going to be an identity between the two. The epistles are written to address specific issues and specific problems. So even just the three weeks is going to go beyond what he’s writing. Right?
Cy Kellett:
Yep.
Karlo Broussard:
But even if we would say, “Well, yeah, everything he taught in three weeks could be in the epistle,” well, Paul’s going to spend a little bit more time and is preaching before his death. He’s coming to the near of his death. But there could be an interim period where he’s teaching them something that’s not found in the written epistle. So for those reasons, Svenson’s argument of appealing to the word of mouth or written epistle as opposed to the word of mouth and written epistle, doesn’t succeed in refuting the Catholic argument here based on 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
Cy Kellett:
So we have good grounds for dialogue on this. Good grounds for conversation.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right. That’s right. And so that the Catholic can continue to confidently appeal at least so far.
Cy Kellett:
To that passage.
Karlo Broussard:
Yes. To that passage in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in support of our Catholic belief of both sacred scripture and sacred tradition being infallible and binding on our consciences as Christians that we need to hold fast to that which comes to us, from either of the means of transmitting God’s truth.
Cy Kellett:
Which is what most Christians believe today and what has been taught by Christians for most of the history of [inaudible 00:33:18]
Karlo Broussard:
Absolutely.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah. Thank you, Karlo.
Karlo Broussard:
Thank you, Cy.