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

[annem]

In the first Christian documents we have, Paul writes about passing on tradition. Every person hearing the letter (yes, they were read aloud to the congregations) would know Paul meant sacred, oral tradition, as held to by the Jews.

Second Temple Jews regarded the oral Torah (sacred tradition) as equal to scripture, and oral tradition was held to with passion and great care. The oral Torah or oral tradition was later written down, after the time of Christ, and is now called the Talmud.

That’s the sacred tradition Paul meant, and it is what the Catholic church has continued to teach to this day. The ancient Christians held to sacred tradition which had been passed down by the Apostles, as witnessed in early Christian document after early Christian document.

So…how was this oral tradition kept reliable? Isn’t passing something on orally a lot like the game of telephone, so often cited by the anti Christian Bart Erhman? Actually, Erhman’s argument is silly - this wasn’t a game for children. The ancient Jews were passing on what mattered most in their lives, the deepest core of their lives, their vital, all important religion, and it was a faith that they were willing to die for. Which they proved in three bloody wars that killed untold Jews around the time of Christ.

Synagogues were not just places of worship, they also educated, and were referred to as places of education, not just devotion. The Jews took the Biblical statement “'and you shall teach them to your children” to mean that every father not only had to learn and know oral and scriptural beliefs, but also, teach these to his son. Joshua b. Gamala, about 64 A.D., established a free education system for Jewish boys about age 7 with teachers in synagogues, In Qumran, boys were taught reading, scripture, and the oral tradition starting at age ten.

Ancient education (much, much better than ours) was based on training in mnemotechnics, intense memorization. Josephus and Augustine both relate they were only promoted in school and life because they were so good at memorization. From “The History of Jewish Education” by Drazin: “Antigonos of Sokho (about 3rd B.C.) had two disciples who would repeat …his words…and they would repeat them to disciples and disciples to disciples’” (p 98).

 

[annem]

A good collection of books on the subject:

The History of Jewish Education by Drazin.

Memory and Manuscript with Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity [Birger Gerhardsso]

Reading and Writing in the time of Jesus by Millard

Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus by Wright

Wax Tablets of the Mind by Jocelyn Penny Small

Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE-400 CE

 

[annem]

some early Christian quotes about sacred tradtion"
2 Thess 2:15: “Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter from us.”
Phil 4:9: “Keep on doing what you have learned and received and HEARD and SEEN IN ME. Then the God of peace will be with you.”
1 Corinth 11:2: “I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the Traditions, just as I handed them on to you.”
2 Thess 3:6: “We instruct you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the TRADITION they received from us.”
1 Peter 1:25: “…but the Word of the Lord REMAINS FOREVER. This is the Word that has been PROCLAIMED TO YOU (i.e., orally).”
In the Church Fathers:
ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS (c. 180 AD):
“So forceful are these arguments that no one should henceforth seek the truth from ANY OTHER SOURCE since it would be simple to get it from THE CHURCH …On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the TRADITION OF TRUTH …For… to follow the course of Tradition which they handed down to those whom they committed the Churches?” (Against the Heresies 3:4:1)
“TBut when the heretics use Scriptures, as if they were wrong and unauthoritative, and we variable, and the truth could not be extracted from them by those who were IGNORANT OF TRADITION. And when we challenge them in turn with that TRADITION, which is FROM THE APOSTLES, which is guarded by the succession of presbyters in the churches, they oppose themselves to TRADITION, saying they are wiser, not only than those presbyters but even than the Apostles! The TRADITION OF THE APOSTLES manifested, on the contrary, in the whole world, is open in every church to all who seeks the truth …And since it is a long matter in a work like this to enumerate these successions, we will confute them by pointing to the TRADITION of the greatest and most ancient and universally-known Church founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, a TRADITION which she has had and a faith which she proclaims to all men FROM THOSE APOSTLES.” (Against the Heresies 3:1-3)
“It comes to this, therefore, these men do not consent to either Scripture nor TRADITION.” (Against the Heresies 3:2:2).
T

 

[neophyte]

It’s like the song “Route 66”. According to the song it goes through St. Louis, Joplin, Oklahoma City, Amarillo, Gallup, Flagstaff and so on. We know that it goes through many other towns, but the songwriter wasn’t intending to detail every single inch of roadway.

So if someone comes along and says that it also goes through Denver, or doesn’t go through Albequerque, or that Leila’s Hair Museum is really a thing (it is, btw), you have to ask the people who actually know the route to confirm it.

In the case of Christian belief, Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to flesh out the map. And the Apostles passed that authority on to the college of bishops and most specifically to the Sucessor of St. Peter.

 

[OddBird]

Exactly they shouldn’t be questioned because Sacraments aren’t part of Sacred Tradition, they are part of Sacred Scripture… isn’t it?

I’m not sure about this distinction as far as sacraments are concerned, to be honest. I’d even say that, in my eyes, sacraments are a good illustration of what Dei Verbum says about the relationship between the two : “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (DV10). I think both are necessary to understand them.

But frankly, from what is told in the OP, I’m not even sure the distinction is made…
If the way @MattEZ presents things is accurate, the person in question just seems to dismiss the whole of “dogma” as unconnected with Jesus or the Apostles.
Colour me puzzled.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

I’m with the others who have mentioned that this “Catholic in the past” is either woefully undercatechized, or perhaps his understanding of what “dogma” means is inaccurate.

I was watching a debate online, and one of the protestants brought up a point which I found interesting.

URL? Time stamp in video?

 

[MattEZ]

Ahh, perhaps I should clarify a little more. The discussion was in relation to Sola Scriptura, and the protestant’s argument was that both the written and oral tradition were the same, and that the only Catholic teachings that can be directly attributed to Jesus or the Apostles are those that are already in the Bible.

So it was more how can we know our other teachings, such as the sacraments, assumption of Mary, purgatory, etc; can be linked to the apostles if they’re not directly quoted in scripture. He’s saying the Bible alone is all we need, because that is the only thing we can PROVE is directly what Jesus and the Apostles taught. And it seems he’s saying, for him, it’s just our assumption that the oral and written traditions Paul talks about were different.

Sorry for any confusion! It was late when I wrote it

URL? Time stamp in video?

@Gorgias, as I said I missed a detail above, but this is the link to the video:

It’s James White and Jeff Durbin responding to a video response by Trent Horn. The section I’m talking about starts at 1:28:50

 

[neophyte]

The discussion was in relation to Sola Scriptura, and the protestant’s argument was that both the written and oral tradition were the same, , and that the only Catholic teachings that can be directly attributed to Jesus or the Apostles are those that are already in the Bible.

Well, the only way that can be true is if the Bible explicitly says that, which it does not. More than that, his position ultimately prevents him from being able to identify which texts are Apostolic at all.

 

[TMC]

Ahh, perhaps I should clarify a little more. The discussion was in relation to Sola Scriptura, and the protestant’s argument was that both the written and oral tradition were the same, and that the only Catholic teachings that can be directly attributed to Jesus or the Apostles are those that are already in the Bible.

Well, despite the label “sola scriptura,” I am not aware of any major Protestant sect that limits its teachings to things explicitly found in Scripture, let alone to things explicitly attributable to Jesus or an apostle.

 

[MattEZ]

Oh definitely, one reason I disagree with his position is because it relies on the assumption that the Canon of scripture is infallible, which is illogical as the Bible doesn’t define which books should be in it.

Well, despite the label “sola scriptura,” I am not aware of any major Protestant sect that limits its teachings to things explicitly found in Scripture, let alone to things explicitly attributable to Jesus or an apostle.

It’s more that they know the apostles wrote the new testament, so they have direct evidence that it was what they taught. But linking our tradition to the “oral tradition” is a bit harder.

 

[TMC]

It’s more that they know the apostles wrote the new testament, so they have direct evidence that it was what they taught. But linking our tradition to the “oral tradition” is a bit harder.

Well, the apostles did not write the Gospels. The Gospels do not even claim to be written by the apostles (with the possible exception of John). In fact, everything we think we “know” about the authors of the Gospels comes from the gasp Catholic tradition. So there is that.

Plus, how do they explain doctrine not found in the text of the Gospels, like the trinity?

 

[MattEZ]

Ah sorry, I didn’t know that. I’m not sure what position they’re taking then. But you’re right, there is traditions they believe that aren’t directly stated in the Bible.

 

[Dan_Defender]

the oral tradition mentioned by Paul.

Yes and we have witnesses to that tradition in the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the declarations of the Church. What do Protestants have to show before the 1500s?

 

[Gorgias]

the protestant’s argument was that both the written and oral tradition were the same, and that the only Catholic teachings that can be directly attributed to Jesus or the Apostles are those that are already in the Bible.

A couple of thoughts:

• First, “the Protestant” is James White. Oy vey. You could hardly find a more anti-Catholic Christian apologist.
• Second, “the Catholic” isn’t just some random Catholic guy. Although White refers to him as “Mitch”, he’s talking about Fr Mitch Pacwa, a well-respected Catholic priest and theologian. So, the notion that “this must be some guy who doesn’t know what he’s talking about” is right out the window.
• Third, the claim that White is making is pretty substantially different than the one you originally made, so your clarification is very helpful !!!

Here, White is kinda playing dirty pool. He’s boxed in his question in such a way that there’s no possible answer other than the one he wants to hear. (It’s kinda like the logical fallacy inherent in the question “have you stopped beating your wife?”. The fallacy is the “loaded question”, which makes implicit assumptions that must be addressed before the question can be answered properly (and often, the challenge to the assumptions makes the question itself moot). After all, if I don’t have a wife, or if I never started beating her, then there’s no answer to the question. But, if I don’t address the implicit assumptions, then the answer ‘yes’ results in the response “a-ha! So you did beat her in the past, then!”, and the answer ‘no’ results in “you monster – you’re still beating her!!!”

So, the precise question White asks is “can you tell us a single word that Jesus ever spoke that has been dogmatically defined by the Roman Catholic Church that is not found within the pages of Scripture?”

There are many assumptions – and many problems! – with this question. And, I suspect, White knew he was stacking the deck.

A ‘dogma’ is something that’s defined as being part of the Deposit of Faith. For Catholics, that’s either “Sacred Scripture” or “Sacred Tradition”.

Sacred Tradition began with the teaching of the Apostles (who were obeying Christ’s commission to teach what He taught them), and continues with their successors.

Let’s take an example: non-Jewish Christians were being told that they must circumsize and follow Mosaic Law in order to be Christian. The matter was brought before the Apostles, and they decided that this was not necessary for Gentile Christians. Now, here’s the question: is that authoritative because it was taught by the Apostles, or because it’s in the Bible ? Clearly, it was authoritative when it was spoken – its authority stems from the Apostles, and precedes the Bible!

So, if White wants to argue otherwise, then he’s being anachronistic. He knows that we call Christ’s teachings ‘dogma’, and is pretending that the definition isn’t “Christ’s teachings”, but merely “in the Bible.”

(BTW… love the Bible fetishism in the video, just prior to this part of the discussion. )

 

[MattEZ]

That actually makes a lot of sense! Thanks for replying again and sorry for confusing you with the original question

 

[Dovekin]

the precise question White asks is “can you tell us a single word that Jesus ever spoke that has been dogmatically defined by the Roman Catholic Church that is not found within the pages of Scripture?”

There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
John 21:25

The question is what do we do about these other things Jesus did, the other things Jesus said? Should the apostles have just forgotten about them, since the scriptures contain everything needed for salvation? Or would they have continued talking about Jesus and what he did forever?

In the publishing era, the time since we began printing books, we have become accustomed to checking against sources. To spell a word, we check a dictionary; to check a fact, we turn to a vetted history book. We do not have an option like that for an oral tradition, by definition. We believe based on the authority of the speaker. We believe according to the Holy Spirit within us, helped by the efforts of that same Spirit in our past and in the leaders of the Church. This is different from relying just on what has been printed. There are many other things that Jesus did.

 

[annad347]

Early Church Fathers and the declarations of the Church.

was this written the same as Sacred Scripture?

 

[Maximian]

Some Protestant churches believe that too.

Only to the extent that they are claiming to be Catholic (notably Anglo-Carholics)

 

[goout]

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.

All of scripture…every word…is based on the personal authority and oral testimony of the early Church. End of story.

Without the one true Church and it’s Tradition scripture is meaningless.

 

[OddBird]

My Reformed national church does recognize the Real Presence – even though, as I said, the “how” and the “for how long” of its actualization are understood differently.

It does not claim to be Catholic, except to affirm it is part of the universal Church.

I do not agree with that position any longer, but that’s what it is.