J
jemfinch
Guest
There are at least two that every Christian Church I know of practices, but cannot be proven from Scripture:
- Christian men cannot take multiple wives.
- Non-baptized people cannot take the Eucharist.
Example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition
- Status
B
Balance
Guest
Well said. “Trust in the Lord and he **will **direct your path,” Damo. (Prov. 3.6) and “surely I know the plans I have for for, says the Lord, plans for a future full of hope” (my paraphrase from Jere. 29.11 - I think!)
B
Balance
Guest
These two examples aren’t doctrine:
if you like, they’re “small t tradition,” which are possibly or even probably true but which a Catholic can believe or not as they wish (because they’re not about essential things) while this post **is **doctrine - “big T Tradition”
just to clarify.
M
marlo
Guest
It depends on your definition of doctrine
doctrine means a teaching, below are teachings of Oral Tradition which the church teaches which can be seen inside the church and through the writing of the church fathers.
doctrine means a teaching, below are teachings of Oral Tradition which the church teaches which can be seen inside the church and through the writing of the church fathers.
These two examples aren’t doctrine:
if you like, they’re “small t tradition,” which are possibly or even probably true but which a Catholic can believe or not as they wish (because they’re not about essential things) while this post **is **doctrine - “big T Tradition”
just to clarify.
M
Mommyof02green
Guest
example would be the TRINITY… No where in the Bible will you see the words TRINITY. However, there is enough scripture to support the Trinity.
Jesus being FULLY DIVINE AND FULLY HUMAN. You will not find a passage that said that He is Fully Human and Fully Divine, however you will find enough scripture to support it.
Q: My Protestant friends say that their church goes by the Bible Alone, but that the Catholic Church has added a lot of man-made traditions to the Word of God…is that true?
A: click here
Also this might be helpful Catholics and the Bible
Jesus being FULLY DIVINE AND FULLY HUMAN. You will not find a passage that said that He is Fully Human and Fully Divine, however you will find enough scripture to support it.
Q: My Protestant friends say that their church goes by the Bible Alone, but that the Catholic Church has added a lot of man-made traditions to the Word of God…is that true?
A: click here
Also this might be helpful Catholics and the Bible
J
JOE_OBERR
Guest
What about the canon of the bible? There is no book of the bible which lists the canonical books the pope approved in (approximately) 394AD after the local councils of Hippo & Carthage.
But that’s ok because the church doesn’t come to us from the bible but from the apostles. And the gospel comes to us from what the apostles preached, not from one’s personal guesswork on bible verses. Jesus commanded his apostles to go out & preach the gospel, not write it, which was his method also - oral teaching.
Joe
C
Contarini
Guest
No, it does nothing of the kind. The question is–if there are true teachings not in Scripture, what are they? Protestants have been asking this for 500 years and haven’t gotten a satisfactory answer, because it’s the essence of the Catholic understanding of tradition to be highly flexible and vague. Hence it easily morphs into “tradition is whatever the Church says it is,” which is what Protestants are really objecting to.
If the Catholic Church would list a few specific things that it believes were really handed down orally, then we could debate them. But you will never do that, because the real question isn’t whether oral tradition exists but whether the Church should be trusted implicitly.
I’m not accusing the Church of dishonesty here. There’s a bit of a bait-and-switch going on, but that’s just human. Protestants do it too on various issues. It’s not deliberate dishonesty.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
So are you saying that the Apostles handed down an exact list of which books were in Scripture, and those who questioned some of those books (or named others as canonical) were either ignorant of or resistant to that Apostolic Tradition? Are you sure you want to go there, given what varied lists (around the edges) we have from the first few centuries?
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
So are you saying that the term “Trinity” was handed down orally by the Apostles?
That is what Damo is asking for–a tradition that is not mentioned in the Bible but was handed down orally. That’s not the same thing as an idea that developed out of the Church’s meditation on Scripture, which is where I’d put the Trinity.
The crux of the Scripture/Tradition debate is that for Protestants these are two different issues (oral tradition and development), whereas Catholics blur them together seamlessly.
Same as above. Is this oral tradition or development based on Scripture? Protestants would say the latter, and it sounds like you are saying this too. In which case Damo’s question has still not been answered.
Edwin%between%
C
Contarini
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
Fair enough. However, Damo’s second question then becomes relevant. You want to pose it the other way round–is it against Scripture? But that’s not what Damo asked. He asked how you know it is actually an apostolic tradition. We’d have to start by discussing the date of the Protoevangelion of James, and whether it is reliable, etc.
Myself, I’m on the fence about this one.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Marlo, you give four interesting examples.
The Assumption doesn’t work, IMHO, because the evidence for it is too late. It’s hard to believe that it was passed down orally for four or five centuries. I’m not going to say that those who think it was are clearly wrong, but it’s going to be hard to persuade Protestants of this.
I’m not quite sure I understand your point about the Lord’s Prayer. Certainly there are Protestants who claim that it’s a model rather than a form to be used, but that’s a matter of interpretation, not of oral tradition.
The Eucharist is a good example, but a difficult one because there is clearly development going on, and it’s hard to isolate just what allegedly was handed down orally. But it’s reasonable to suppose that a clearer understanding of the Real Presence (and perhaps some basic liturgical matters) was handed down orally. In particular, it’s possible that the idea of the Eucharist as sacrifice was an oral teaching.
Apostolic succession is the best example you’ve come up with, I think. Again, you can find a kernel of the idea in the Pastoral Epistles (and maybe even in the Gospels, though that’s less clear). And on the other hand, there’s obviously development there too. But given how certain Ignatius and Clement seem to be that the leaders of the Church received apostolic authority, it’s quite reasonable to think that the Apostles handed down something on this that is clearer than what we find in Scripture.
JaneFrances,
The intercession of the saints is an interesting example, but it seems to me that the practice clearly grew out of the veneration of martyrs, which militates against it being an apostolic tradition. I think the first example of a glorified saint being asked for prayers is from the 3rd century (the Marian prayer “Sub Tuum Praesidium”–I’m taking the word of Catholic apologist friends that this is from the 3rd century). So you could be right, but I think the evidence is shaky. It seems more plausible that this was a gradual development arising from martyr veneration on the one hand and the growing emphasis on the Virgin Mary on the other.
Edwin
The Assumption doesn’t work, IMHO, because the evidence for it is too late. It’s hard to believe that it was passed down orally for four or five centuries. I’m not going to say that those who think it was are clearly wrong, but it’s going to be hard to persuade Protestants of this.
I’m not quite sure I understand your point about the Lord’s Prayer. Certainly there are Protestants who claim that it’s a model rather than a form to be used, but that’s a matter of interpretation, not of oral tradition.
The Eucharist is a good example, but a difficult one because there is clearly development going on, and it’s hard to isolate just what allegedly was handed down orally. But it’s reasonable to suppose that a clearer understanding of the Real Presence (and perhaps some basic liturgical matters) was handed down orally. In particular, it’s possible that the idea of the Eucharist as sacrifice was an oral teaching.
Apostolic succession is the best example you’ve come up with, I think. Again, you can find a kernel of the idea in the Pastoral Epistles (and maybe even in the Gospels, though that’s less clear). And on the other hand, there’s obviously development there too. But given how certain Ignatius and Clement seem to be that the leaders of the Church received apostolic authority, it’s quite reasonable to think that the Apostles handed down something on this that is clearer than what we find in Scripture.
JaneFrances,
The intercession of the saints is an interesting example, but it seems to me that the practice clearly grew out of the veneration of martyrs, which militates against it being an apostolic tradition. I think the first example of a glorified saint being asked for prayers is from the 3rd century (the Marian prayer “Sub Tuum Praesidium”–I’m taking the word of Catholic apologist friends that this is from the 3rd century). So you could be right, but I think the evidence is shaky. It seems more plausible that this was a gradual development arising from martyr veneration on the one hand and the growing emphasis on the Virgin Mary on the other.
Edwin
T
tdgesq
Guest
They were also clear on the Eucharistic real presence, especially Clement. It’s been a while since I’ve read the writings of the early church fathers, but IIRC Clement does refer to the teachings of the apostles (including Paul) on more than one occasion. Remember that Clement was born sometime in the middle of the 2nd century. Whether any of those passages could be interpreted to mean that Clement was handed down orally something the apostles said, I do not know. I will look for that volume when I get home tonight.
Part of me wonders though why it would be necessary for a Catholic to “prove” that a particular tradition of the church came directly out of the mouth of one of the apostles. It is fairly evident to me from scripture and from some of the earlier works of the church that the church has teaching authority that is binding on the conscience of the individual Christian. When exercising that authority, it would be insanity for the church to outright dismiss the understanding of earlier generations of the church on certain doctrines of faith.
I guess I’m just not all that troubled by the question. Maybe I should be.
M
marlo
Guest
Hi Edwin
Thanks for the comments, Assumption is based on oral tradition as it is also called in the Orthodox images as the Dorminion of the Mother of God, There is also an oral tradtion that said that mary died and then they found no body in her coffin. It part of the tradition even in the Orthodox circles.
the catholic church formally announce this dogma to clear out issues with the protestant but this belief has been with us since the 1st century,
this is really a debatable topic…cheers
Thanks for the comments, Assumption is based on oral tradition as it is also called in the Orthodox images as the Dorminion of the Mother of God, There is also an oral tradtion that said that mary died and then they found no body in her coffin. It part of the tradition even in the Orthodox circles.
the catholic church formally announce this dogma to clear out issues with the protestant but this belief has been with us since the 1st century,
this is really a debatable topic…cheers
M
marlo
Guest
another example of Oral Apostolic tradition that the bible is silent
is “Adam and Eve are in heaven” and they are forgiven, however its really difficult to prove its apostolic origin but the Apostolic churches hold the same view.
is “Adam and Eve are in heaven” and they are forgiven, however its really difficult to prove its apostolic origin but the Apostolic churches hold the same view.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Do we?
M
marlo
Guest
yes we do
C
CARose
Guest
News to me! I just looked it up in the CCC to see if it was something I’d simply overlooked, but it’s not there from what I can see.
I’m not saying that they’re not in heaven, but neither do I believe the Church has ever stated definitively that they have have been saved. They lost their initial state of holiness and lost it for all subsequent generations, but whether they were repentant at the time of their death or not isn’t something I’m certain of.
CARose
I’m not saying that they’re not in heaven, but neither do I believe the Church has ever stated definitively that they have have been saved. They lost their initial state of holiness and lost it for all subsequent generations, but whether they were repentant at the time of their death or not isn’t something I’m certain of.
CARose
C
Contarini
Guest
Irenaeus was quite insistent on the salvation of Adam and Eve, and it’s certainly the traditional view. I suspect it’s more important to Eastern than Western Christians (marlo, aren’t you a Melkite or something?). There’s a very famous icon of the Harrowing of Hell in which Christ lifts Adam and Eve out of Hades.
Of course, if you think the only thing that matters is Official Dogma. . . .
Edwin
U
USMC
Guest
Polygamy. In the Old Testament it was allowed and we find no mention of it in the New Testament. The prohibition on polygamy is an oral apostolic Tradition.
Luther, who rejected oral Tradition in favor of the Bible alone, was forced to admit that he could not forbid a person to marry several wives since it was not contrary to scripture.
Martin Luther: “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife, he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case, the civil authority has nothing to do in such a matter.” (De Wette II, 459).
- Status