How do we know our traditions are the oral traditions that were passed down?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MattEZ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MattEZ

Guest
I was watching a debate online, and one of the protestants brought up a point which I found interesting. Not in the sense that it’s irrefutable, but rather it’s something I simply hadn’t thought of.

We believe in Sacred tradition, specifically (if we’re going by the Bible) that of the oral tradition mentioned by Paul. By this protestant said he had spoken to a Catholic in the past, and had been told that they weren’t able to point to one thing in our dogma that had been directly spoken by either Jesus or the Apostles.

So I guess my question would be how to respond to that? How can we know our traditions are the same ones that were passed orally? Is it simply looking to the early church fathers?

Of course, I know the reverse claim could be used to refute this (how do we know the Bible contains all the written traditions and scripture, apart from the Catholic Church defining it as so). But just wanted to see your insight on this.

God bless!

Edit: wanted to clarify something in the quote. Of course we have teachings based in the Bible and scripture, but his argument was if there was any dogma, attributed to the apostles or Jesus, that WASN’T mentioned in the Bible (which is whst the Catholic above said he couldn’t think of). And how can we know those teachings did come from them.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for sharing this. I’m not entirely sure I understand how this addresses the OP’s question.

I read the section you recommended, and it seems to boil down to “we believe the tradition is accurate as a matter of faith.” Did I miss some aspect of it?
 
MattEZ said:
had been told that they weren’t able to point to one thing in our dogma that had been directly spoken by either Jesus or the Apostles.
Click to expand...
technically this is correct since Jesus never wrote anything down himself. However, anyone who has an understanding of how oral tradition works would not have an issue with what is attributed to Jesus and the Apostles
 
vsedriver said:
However, anyone who has an understanding of how oral tradition works would not have an issue with what is attributed to Jesus and the Apostles
Click to expand...
but I think the original poster’s question is how do we attribute Sacred traditions to the Apostles?

@MattEZ Thank you for asking this question by the way… it’s an interesting one. 🙂
 
Last edited:
MattEZ said:
had been told that they weren’t able to point to one thing in our dogma that had been directly spoken by either Jesus or the Apostles.
Click to expand...
Uh ?

I’m surprised. What about, to quote one obvious example, the institution of Baptism or Eucharist ?

I don’t see how that is “not spoken directly by Jesus or the Apostles” – unless that person thinks there is a missing link between Jesus’ life and the putting down in writing of the New Testament.
 
MattEZ said:
By this protestant said he had spoken to a Catholic in the past, and had been told that they weren’t able to point to one thing in our dogma that had been directly spoken by either Jesus or the Apostles.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how that Catholic could have told the protestant that there was not “one thing in our dogma that had been directly spoken by either Jesus or the Apostles”. That Catholic must have been uncatechized and had no knowledge of Catholic teachings that must be believed (dogmas and doctrines).

Here are just a couple of examples:
Dogma that the Eucharist is the body of Jesus: Jesus said “This is My Body”.
Dogma on necessity of Baptism: Jesus said “unless a man be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. … unless one is born of water and the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. … You must be born anew.” John 3: 1-7

If you want a VERY good reference book that contains Catholic dogmas and doctrines get “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Dr. Ludwig Ott. It briefly states the teaching its theological certainty, gives the Scripture passages that support it, gives the Early Church writings connected to it, gives the history of how it came to be officially defined by the Church (this usually happened when some heresy would arise that would sort of force the Church to clearly and officially define the belief). It appears the book is now only available in hard cover, so it’s a bit pricier than when I got my paperback version years ago. I see it’s also available online in pdf. Not as handy, but better than nothing. 🙂
 
White_Tree said:
“we believe the tradition is accurate as a matter of faith.”
Click to expand...
This is all we can really say. The fact is that we don’t know. We have some texts that are reasonably early, but even those don’t go all the way back to the beginning, and not all of our traditions are found in early texts.
 
JGD said:
Here are just a couple of examples:
Dogma that the Eucharist is the body of Jesus: Jesus said “This is My Body”.
Dogma on necessity of Baptism: Jesus said “unless a man be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. … unless one is born of water and the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. … You must be born anew.” John 3: 1-7
Click to expand...
Aren’t these dogmatic truths a part of Protestant church as well?

I think the OP is talking more about Sacred Traditions… those are Sacraments, are Sacraments part of Sacred Tradition?
 
Last edited:
It depends what the tradition is.

There were books written by Christians that never made it into the canon of Scripture, but were well regarded, like the Didache, that touch on various theological and protocol-type questions.
 
No. Only the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches believe the Eucharistic bread becomes Jesus true body, blood, soul & divinity. Most believe it’s only a symbol. Lutherans believe Jesus becomes present with the bread when received by the communicant, but not until then; thus no tabernacles are needed for unused hosts. There is a very conservative branch of Lutherans that have a belief much closer to our Catholic belief and I’m not sure, but they may reserve left over hosts in a tabernacle.

There are many protestant denominations that do not believe in the necessity of water Baptism.
 
JGD said:
No. Only the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches believe the Eucharistic bread becomes Jesus true body, blood, soul & divinity.
Click to expand...
Some Protestant churches believe that too. How that happens, and for how long, may indeed vary from the Catholic position.

I find @annad347’s question quite pertinent : for those Protestants among us who do have Baptism and Eucharist as sacraments, saying that such dogmas are not directly grounded in Jesus’ word simply makes no sense.

Even from my own Reformed background, I can’t manage to understand where the OP’s Protestant is speaking from. I just don’t get the reasoning.
 
Baptism and Confirmation by the Church to be Christian (Catholic).
“Going, make disciples from among the people of all nations…”
“How shall we do that Jesus?”
 
OddBird said:
That’s Dei Verbum – Vatican II’s Constitution on Divine Revelation.
Click to expand...
Thank you… booked marked… now the big questions… will I read it?. ahhhh.
OddBird said:
… do have Baptism and Eucharist as sacraments, saying that such dogmas are not directly grounded in Jesus’ word simply makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Exactly they shouldn’t be questioned because Sacraments aren’t part of Sacred Tradition, they are part of Sacred Scripture… isn’t it?
 
Last edited:
The fact I have the heritage I do gives me an appreciation for oral culture. Now, I am not one of the people that ascribes an especially late date for the gospels (in fact, I hold the minority opinion that the Gospel of John was written after the Book of Revelation, not before), but the books of the Bible themselves, were, for a while, oral tradition. There were some decades in the early Church that there were no written Gospels (depending on who you ask, either Mark or Matthew is the earliest, I believe Matthew is). Okay, so let’s say the earliest gospel wasn’t written until 42 AD (this is just an example), and we’re not quite sure when Our Lord ascended into Heaven, but, let’s use the traditional date of 33 AD. Okay, so, that’s 9 years without a written gospel. Okay, say it was Matthew, how long do you think it took him to write it? It takes me 14 minutes to read John 6 & 7 together, so I am sure it would have taken Matthew much longer to write it his gospel. And that’s not even getting into the circulation of the writings, which would have taken some years around the Mediterranean. The GOSPEL message would have had to start as an oral tradition, and in at least one gospel, the implication says as much, check out Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theoph′ilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed. Well, how did the dud Luke is talking to learned it to begin with, if Luke feels the need to write it down? It says Theoph′ilus has been informed, not that he was informed by writing. THAT is oral tradition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top