D
Damo73
Guest
Can someone give me an example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about and could you please provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.
Example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition
- Status
B
Balance
Guest
Hi Damo,
haven’t got time right now to write much but here’s a couple of links for you to read prayerfully:
scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html
catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
Just one wee quote from that article:
“Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).”
One question is: how did early Christians know what was true Christian teaching in the years **before the Bible came together **if not from the oral teaching of those (the Apostles and their successors) to whom Christ himself had given the authority to teach it?
Good question. (yours, I mean, not mine)
Have a read of those links and tell us what you think.
haven’t got time right now to write much but here’s a couple of links for you to read prayerfully:
scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html
catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
Just one wee quote from that article:
“Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).”
One question is: how did early Christians know what was true Christian teaching in the years **before the Bible came together **if not from the oral teaching of those (the Apostles and their successors) to whom Christ himself had given the authority to teach it?
Good question. (yours, I mean, not mine)
Have a read of those links and tell us what you think.
M
mercygate
Guest
This goes to the material versus the formal sufficiency of Scripture. Have you looked into that aspect of the question? You will not find a Catholic doctrine that is unsupported by Scripture.
P
PepeRoni
Guest
That starts from the false primary assumption that something has to be in Scripture to be true. Unfortunately, Jesus didn’t come to write a book. He came to start a Church. And he only started 1. This is why Christianity started and spread through preaching, and that worked just fine for Peter, Paul, John and the rest of the Apostles.
D
Damo73
Guest
Then scripture alone is sufficient, then mercygate
C
CARose
Guest
Hi Damo73,
Nice to meet you, I’ve read a few of your other posts and hope you’re getting all the answers you need.
As for a doctinal teaching that is fully extra-biblical, I think you’ll be hard-pressed to find one with no scriptural support, as after much reflection, if a particular teaching didn’t start with “obvious” scriptural support, it has been found that scripture subtly teaches that which the Church holds as truth.
But remember, the source of all retained Truth is that which has been revealed to men by Christ. God revealed much to His people, the Jews, and finally, in fulfillment of that which had been revealed, He sent His Son, Jesus. Jesus then revealed all and promised before leaving that He would leave us with His paraclete (sorry, Strong’s doesn’t help me find the passage) and we would remember all He’d taught (I wish I could give you the proper quote).
He also left us A (one) Church, which he built upon the rock (Peter) and promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it.
Paul also tells us that this Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15).
And the author of all this truth, whether in Old Testament, New Testament, Sacred Tradition or the teachings of the Magisterium, is God Himself, hence there can never be a contradiction between any of these sources, as they are all part of a single Truth.
God Bless,
CARose
Nice to meet you, I’ve read a few of your other posts and hope you’re getting all the answers you need.
As for a doctinal teaching that is fully extra-biblical, I think you’ll be hard-pressed to find one with no scriptural support, as after much reflection, if a particular teaching didn’t start with “obvious” scriptural support, it has been found that scripture subtly teaches that which the Church holds as truth.
But remember, the source of all retained Truth is that which has been revealed to men by Christ. God revealed much to His people, the Jews, and finally, in fulfillment of that which had been revealed, He sent His Son, Jesus. Jesus then revealed all and promised before leaving that He would leave us with His paraclete (sorry, Strong’s doesn’t help me find the passage) and we would remember all He’d taught (I wish I could give you the proper quote).
He also left us A (one) Church, which he built upon the rock (Peter) and promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it.
Paul also tells us that this Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15).
And the author of all this truth, whether in Old Testament, New Testament, Sacred Tradition or the teachings of the Magisterium, is God Himself, hence there can never be a contradiction between any of these sources, as they are all part of a single Truth.
God Bless,
CARose
D
Damo73
Guest
PepeRoni i am not saying that at all, i am asking for examples that are not in the bible, not denying them if they are not.
N
neophyte
Guest
The Canon of Scripture.
It’s obviously not part of the text of Sacred Scripture, therefor the only way we have to know which ancient texts are indeed authentic and inerrant is oral tradition.
It’s been said that “The Lord Jesus, as king and head of his Church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, by virtue whereof they have power respectively to retain and remit sins, to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel, and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require. … It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same…”
And so since the Church has accepted the Catholic canon since the 4th Century, and the Council of Trent dogmatically defined it as such, we know that the Catholic canon must be the correct one.
J
JaneFrances
Guest
I don’t know if this would qualify as something about which Scripture is entirely “silent,” per se, but the Canon of Sacred Scripture is certainly a tradition that is Apostolic in nature.
It has been mentioned many times before, yet it is still prudent to note that nowhere in Sacred Scripture is there a listing of those books which should be considered inspired. Yet, as Christians, we hold fast to the extra-Scriptural tradition of acknowledging 27 books as New Testament Scripture.
To be sure, this “doctrine” of the New Testament Canon developed over a period of time during the early Church, however can not be denied that it has its roots in the Apostolic age.
Does that help?
It has been mentioned many times before, yet it is still prudent to note that nowhere in Sacred Scripture is there a listing of those books which should be considered inspired. Yet, as Christians, we hold fast to the extra-Scriptural tradition of acknowledging 27 books as New Testament Scripture.
To be sure, this “doctrine” of the New Testament Canon developed over a period of time during the early Church, however can not be denied that it has its roots in the Apostolic age.
Does that help?
B
Balance
Guest
The tone of your original post suggests that you’ve been reading something like:bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm
“Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics and Orthodox can’t answer
…
9. Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin”
and so you might understand that Catholics in here get the feeling that you’re about to deny any examples given, and that they assume you’re starting from the position that PepeRoni described ie, the false assumption that the Bible is the sole rule of faith.
Fair enough?
B
Balance
Guest
Did you have a look at those links I posted, damo? Lots of good stuff there… get stuck into it.
C
CARose
Guest
Mary’s perpetual virginity would be one teaching that many Non-Catholics have difficulty with, claiming that there is nothing in scripture that states this as the case. But there are many who knew Mary up to the time of her death and they, as members of the Church, passed on this important aspect of her life.
So, then the question is, is this teaching contrary to scripture. There are those who would argue that it is against scripture, but it’s interesting to note that is this is correct interpretation of scripture, why did it take more than 1500 years before such a position was recognized by any Christian?
The argument that scripture refers to Jesus’s brothers proves she wasn’t a virgin. There are several responses to this. 1) Arameic (I think that’s the language) didn’t have a word for cousin, and brother was used to refer to brethren (extended family members). 2) Joseph may have been a widower with children from a first wife. If this was the case, his children would be Jesus’s half-brothers, referred to simply as brothers. 3) If Mary had other Son’s, certainly Christ would not have given His mother to someone else’s care as one of the last acts of His life (on the cross He gave Mary to the care of John, the beloved disciple). This would have been a serious insult to any surviving son, as it was the son’s responsibility to care for His elderly mother.
Remember, first there was Truth revealed to the Jew’s and much of which was retained in the Old Testament. But even there, all that was needed was not to be found in scripture. Scripture does not give a blueprint of how one goes about Temple Worship, which in the Old Covenant was required for forgiveness of sins.
I don’t recall if it was Christ himself or one of the others who gives us in scripture a reference to the Chair of Moses (sorry, my Strong’s concordance is again letting me down), but the Authority of the chair of Moses isn’t found in the Old Testament, even though the New Testament refers to it as though it’s a well understood concept.
There are several instances like this in New Testament, where concepts are laid out, but nothing regarding this teaching is found in Old Testament.
If the Bible Alone were sufficient (all is profitable, but this is not the same as saying it is sufficient) then certainly this would include Old Testament.
Oh, and when Timothy tells of how All scripture is profitable, this was written before some of the New Testament was even written, and it refers to the position of things when he was a young man, before much if not all the New Testament was written.
Certainly you wouldn’t want to say that we don’t need all of the New Testament.
God Bless,
CARose
So, then the question is, is this teaching contrary to scripture. There are those who would argue that it is against scripture, but it’s interesting to note that is this is correct interpretation of scripture, why did it take more than 1500 years before such a position was recognized by any Christian?
The argument that scripture refers to Jesus’s brothers proves she wasn’t a virgin. There are several responses to this. 1) Arameic (I think that’s the language) didn’t have a word for cousin, and brother was used to refer to brethren (extended family members). 2) Joseph may have been a widower with children from a first wife. If this was the case, his children would be Jesus’s half-brothers, referred to simply as brothers. 3) If Mary had other Son’s, certainly Christ would not have given His mother to someone else’s care as one of the last acts of His life (on the cross He gave Mary to the care of John, the beloved disciple). This would have been a serious insult to any surviving son, as it was the son’s responsibility to care for His elderly mother.
Remember, first there was Truth revealed to the Jew’s and much of which was retained in the Old Testament. But even there, all that was needed was not to be found in scripture. Scripture does not give a blueprint of how one goes about Temple Worship, which in the Old Covenant was required for forgiveness of sins.
I don’t recall if it was Christ himself or one of the others who gives us in scripture a reference to the Chair of Moses (sorry, my Strong’s concordance is again letting me down), but the Authority of the chair of Moses isn’t found in the Old Testament, even though the New Testament refers to it as though it’s a well understood concept.
There are several instances like this in New Testament, where concepts are laid out, but nothing regarding this teaching is found in Old Testament.
If the Bible Alone were sufficient (all is profitable, but this is not the same as saying it is sufficient) then certainly this would include Old Testament.
Oh, and when Timothy tells of how All scripture is profitable, this was written before some of the New Testament was even written, and it refers to the position of things when he was a young man, before much if not all the New Testament was written.
Certainly you wouldn’t want to say that we don’t need all of the New Testament.
God Bless,
CARose
J
JaneFrances
Guest
Another one that comes to mind is the intercession of the Saints. Again, it would be difficult to say that Scripture is entirely “silent” on this doctrinal tradition. To demand that Scripture be “silent” is a difficult premise.
Nowhere in Scripture is there explicit proof for the intercession of the Saints, however, there are several first century sources which would support veneration and intercession of the Saints. One particular source would be the catacombs which survive as evidence that the VERY early Church believed that the saints and martyrs could intercede on their behalf.
Nowhere in Scripture is there explicit proof for the intercession of the Saints, however, there are several first century sources which would support veneration and intercession of the Saints. One particular source would be the catacombs which survive as evidence that the VERY early Church believed that the saints and martyrs could intercede on their behalf.
B
Balance
Guest
A couple of thoughts:
Here’s Paul speaking in 2Th 2:15:
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by **word of mouth **or by our letter.
Hold fast to these oral traditions… “traditions” like the theology of a Trinitarian God, like what writings were inspired and should go into the Bible and which shouldn’t, like what exactly the Incarnation involved, like ideas of salvation and redemption and so on - doctrines not explicitly spelled out in the Scriptures but which are all there, implicitly, and which God has lead his Church to understand and given it the authority to teach.
Here’s Paul speaking in 2Th 2:15:
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by **word of mouth **or by our letter.
Hold fast to these oral traditions… “traditions” like the theology of a Trinitarian God, like what writings were inspired and should go into the Bible and which shouldn’t, like what exactly the Incarnation involved, like ideas of salvation and redemption and so on - doctrines not explicitly spelled out in the Scriptures but which are all there, implicitly, and which God has lead his Church to understand and given it the authority to teach.
B
Balance
Guest
and scriptures like
Heb 12:1
Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us
J
JaneFrances
Guest
Oh, right. . .I did not mean to imply that the intercession of the heavenly saints is completely excluded from Sacred Scripture, but simply that it is not as explicit a doctrine as, say, the Real Presence. This is precisely why I prefaced my response with the qualifier that Scriptural “silence” is a difficult premise.
B
Balance
Guest
Oh, right. . .I did not mean to imply that the intercession of the heavenly saints is completely excluded from Sacred Scripture, but simply that it is not as explicit a doctrine as, say, the Real Presence. This is precisely why I prefaced my response with the qualifier that Scriptural “silence” is a difficult premise.
I was agreeing with you - an example of a text that implicitly refers to the communion of Saints as Catholics understand it.
D
Damo73
Guest
Balance, yes i have looked at those links thank you, and yes Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics and Orthodox can’t answer is one of the many anti catholic sites i have been asked to look at,however it is clear that they can be answered.in regards to what questions this forum have argued well, sola scriptura in wich i used many of my bible college notes to try to argue the point, and the authority of the Pope and Rome.It has become clear i have never been given the full story, only information that would lead me to believe i have the correct position.At this moment i feel as though every thing i stood upon has fallen down, it is a scary place.
B
Balance
Guest
I understand that - know that Christ himself is the firm foundation to stand upon! If you feel like there are shifting sands beneath your feet as you learn more about your faith and about the Catholic faith and in doing so, realise that things you’ve believed in the past might not be true, take it all to prayer, be still and quiet, listen, know God’s love for you. Take it to prayer - as Padre Pio used to say, “Pray, hope and don’t worry.”
Keep reading, too. This site has lots of good articles.
God leads us into all truth when we’re honest with him and with ourselves.
M
Montalban
Guest
I don’t know if it counts as a doctrine, but we worship on a Sunday based on tradition, rather than Scripture
- Status