Sometimes The Bible is Hard to Understand Part II

Yesterday, I wrote about the need for an independent authority that would supervene in cases where Scripture is unclear. If you are a "Bible only" subscriber, you wittingly or unwittingly become your own independent authority. You become convinced with prayer and study that your interpretation is the correct one. If the same Holy Spirit is leading someone else to have a completely opposite view, who is right? The reality is that there is an unspoken "Tradition" that protestants use to guide their interpretations. The Calvinist have one "tradition" that guides their interpretation, the Arminians another, the dispensationalists another, the Pentecostals another and so on...... Catholics believe in what is called Sacred Tradition, passed on from the apostles to the early church fathers and preciously held as the "deposit of faith." We acknowledge this Tradition and believe God inspires it as He does the Scripture.
As a Catholic, I believe, based on Matt 16, that Christ founded a church and gave his apostles the authority to bind , loose, forgive etc. This included the church functioning as the "pillar and foundation of truth" as Paul wrote to Timothy. It is this Sacred Tradition that guides Catholics in one unified truth and interpretation of Scripture. Paul exhorted Timothy to hold fast to the word, both spoken and written and to hold to the traditions that had been taught and handed down to him. Protestants often use Jesus words about the "traditions of men" to negate Sacred Tradition. They are two very different concepts and Jesus was rebuking the Pharisees for using "man made" traditions to circumvent obedience to the Law.(Like honoring their parents) The Catholic use of Tradition is to illuminate Scripture, not negate it. Sacred Tradition never goes against Scripture.

Regarding that obscure and difficult verse of Paul's yesterday, the traditional Catholic interpretation suggests that the word "baptism" can refer to more than just water baptism. Jesus used the term baptism in Mark 10:38-39 to refer to trials and afflictions. The trials and afflictions that we undergo can be offered up for the souls of those who have died. But this would be useless if there is no resurrection of the dead. It was the practice of the early church to pray for the dead as evidenced by the writings on tombs in the Catecombs. Therefore, when this letter of Paul's was read aloud to the early church in Corinth it did not cause as much confusion as it does in these post reformation days. Of course this interpretation is dismissed by the reformers because it pointed to the Catholic doctrine of a purification after death called Purgatory.
So what was Paul thinking as he was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Where did this come from? In keeping with Paul's habit of using Scripture to make points in his letters, it is likely from an Old Testament Scripture.
"He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of 2000 drachmas of silver and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. (2 Maccabees 12: 43-45)
Is it a far stretch to see that Paul may have been inspired by this verse when he wrote about the resurrection :"Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead if the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?"