Is sacred tradition more holy than scripture?

[SyroMalankara]

No one doubts that during the times when authentic recording of the words of the Prophets did not exist because of a lack of recording materials, that the oral tradition was important, however what is critical is an authoritative source of oral tradition today.

In Catholic Oral Tradition, what is the teachings which are taught to children to memorise perfectly since the time of Jesus?

.

children? Why children? The authentic teaching can be found among adults as well. See the teachings of the Apostolic Churches, they are very compatible

 

[Servant19]

children? Why children? The authentic teaching can be found among adults as well. See the teachings of the Apostolic Churches, they are very compatible

Sorry

Earlier, Micosil likened Catholic Oral Tradition to the Jewish Oral Tradition which was repeated orally again and again to children until they memorised it perfectly…

Is there a similar reality in the Catholic Oral Tradition?

You are saying the teachings of the Apostolic Churches is where this Oral Tradition can be discerned? Is there a link to this please?

.

 

[MartinJordan]

Sorry

Earlier, Micosil likened Catholic Oral Tradition to the Jewish Oral Tradition which was repeated orally again and again to children until they memorised it perfectly…

Is there a similar reality in the Catholic Oral Tradition?

You are saying the teachings of the Apostolic Churches is where this Oral Tradition can be discerned? Is there a link to this please?

.

Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. - John 14:23

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by **word of mouth **or by letter.

16 May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope, 17 encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word. 2 Thessalonians 2 : 15-17

MJ

 

[Servant19]

Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. - John 14:23

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by **word of mouth **or by letter.

16 May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope, 17 encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word. 2 Thessalonians 2 : 15-17

MJ

How does one know today what is Oral Tradition and what is not?

.

 

[hasantas]

How can it not, when the number is not agreed upon and what is authentic is not agreed upon, and what the meaning of the Quranic words are supplemented by scholars with hadith?

Seems like it effects people of faith and the interpretations of the Quran. If you claim it doesn’t effect the Quran, are you referring to some ethereal “eternal Quran”, or the actual practice of it’s words in the real world?

Hadiths are usually about worships and deeds in details. Qur’an establish faith and state worships and main foundations. Qur’an explain items of faith and attributions of God. For instance if there had not been any Hadiths yet faith will be saved through Qur’an. That faith is the fact which was taught by all prophets.The most important fact is the faith on the world. Religions are the ways of worshiping. Qur’an established most parts of worships. Hadiths give more details. Hadiths cannot surpass verses.

And Muslims achieved to iron most parts of problems out in Hadiths.

 

[hasantas]

Yes, “through him all things were made” is a part of our Creed:

I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ
Born of the Father before all ages
God from God, Light from Light,
True God from True God,
Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.
Through Him all things were made.

The line before it sums up the part in dispute. But nobody disagrees that God created through His one, eternal Word.

And let’s not forget the opening verse of John, which preceeds the one you quoted. It’s actually in my signature.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

And if we wish to focus on the word order of “καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος,” the article being only before logos makes logos the subject and theos the predicate nominative, while theos being at the start of the phrase puts great emphasis on God, meaning that the author clearly meant God and not “a god.”

I do not know Greek. What I see is that the term of “word” may have different meanings. Yes Jesus was word of God but that does not mean that it is implied Jesus in everywhere the word of God is stated. I just cannot explain yet I am not scholar in Gospels.

 

[MartinJordan]

How does one know today what is Oral Tradition and what is not?

.

You need to be more specific.What are you trying to find?

MJ

 

[MartinJordan]

I do not know Greek.

Maybe you can ask a Muslim who knows Greek.

Or you can study Genesis 1.

MJ

 

[Wesrock]

I do not know Greek. What I see is that the term of “word” may have different meanings. Yes Jesus was word of God but that does not mean that it is implied Jesus in everywhere the word of God is stated. I just cannot explain yet I am not scholar in Gospels.

Logos has a richer, more complex meaning than “Word,” yes, though in English it’s perhaps the best we could do. However, you seem to imply that the Logos being described in the opening of the Gospel of John is not the same as Jesus. Let me quote the entire prelude to John’s Gospel.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. 4 In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light.

9 The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. 11 He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. 12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. 15 (John bore witness to him, and cried, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.’”) 16 And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only Son,** who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.**

Logos is used for every instance of the Word, in this passage, and in this passage there is no shift in what is meant by it. It’s clear that the Word from the opening, who was described as being with God and being God since “the beginning,” is the same Word that became flesh, the same True Light that entered the world, and that the author is referring particularly to the man of Jesus Christ.

 

[Micosil]

Sorry

Earlier, Micosil likened Catholic Oral Tradition to the Jewish Oral Tradition which was repeated orally again and again to children until they memorised it perfectly…

Is there a similar reality in the Catholic Oral Tradition?

You are saying the teachings of the Apostolic Churches is where this Oral Tradition can be discerned? Is there a link to this please?

.

Let me explain a little bit more. In the culture of the Apostles, this is one of the ways they thought of to preserve the authentic teachings; now, in Judaism, unlike the Church where there is no Magisterium, it was a bit more decentralized so Jews had no central institution to turn to know what was and wasn’t the proper teachings of their faith. Since the Church has a Magisterium, they are the ones that interpret the Deposit of Faith, be it the written Tradition (Sacred Scripture, AKA the Bible), or the Sacred (oral) Tradition.

So obviously, Catholic children aren’t catechized just like Jewish children were (or still are in more orthodox circles, I assume), we have the Magisterium which explains to us what is (and if need be, what isn’t) the authentic Deposit of Faith.

This isn’t much of a surprise, since there’s a substantial nexus between Judaism and Christianity. In the Eastern Churches, where Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy is celebrated by the priest behind the holy or royal doors, what does that remind you of? Of the high priest who could only access the Holiest of Holies once a year.

So as you can see, the Jewish culture of the time of the Apostles is central to this whole issue.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The problems in Hadiths do not effect Qur’an and faith.

I’m not sure why you say that. I’ve been investigating Islam for some time, and although I find a lot to admire, the hadith are one of the problems that stop me from converting. If you go to any number of Muslim web sites, they all stress the importance of the hadith for understanding the Qur’an–not just the chronology, but the meaning of different verses. I know that there is a small minority group that ignores or dismisses hadith entirely–maybe you belong to that group. But all other Muslims take hadith very seriously. But there are so many contradictions and problems, that it seems like a difficult problem. I take religion seriously, but I’m not prepared to spend 10 years trying to sort it all out.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I would like to ask this question again from an earlier post please?
.

Your question was what Catholic children are asked to memorize.

If I may say, you are approaching this from a very Muslim point of view. I understand that for Muslims memorization is very important, and if you memorize the Qur’an you are a hafiz, etc. etc.

But Christianity is about understanding, not memorizing. Children are taught a few basic prayers to memorize–Hail Mary, Our Father, Apostle’s Creed. But there isn’t–in my own experience or that of anyone I know–any attempt to teach children to memorize anything beyond that. The emphasis is on understanding.

If you want an example, in Islam there are contests for children involving reciting the Qur’an from memory. In Christianity, there are contests for children to write essays applying Christian principles to an issue in their own lives, or something like that. I don’t think it would even occur to a teacher to deal with memorization. That’s why we have books…

 

[Erikaspirit16]

How does one know today what is Oral Tradition and what is not?

Other people have answered you, but I’ll give my own answer.

“Oral tradition” for the most part refers to what was generally accepted by the Church in the 1st century. But it does go beyond that–a couple example are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. These were proclaimed as doctrines in the 19th c., but up until then I suppose you could have called them “oral traditions.” In other words, there was a consensus in the Church that these things were true, but no explicit Biblical language you could find to back them up. (In other words, there is no Gospel passage that says “Mary was conceived without sin; she was the only person to be born without the stain of original sin.”)

As someone else pointed out, that’s the role of the Church (Pope, general councils, bishops). The Church decides what is authentic tradition and what is not. It’s not secret, it’s all in Church documents like the documents of Vatican II or the Catechism. All you have to do is read it.

Another way to answer your question is that the Epistles and Gospels are the result of oral tradition. They were based on oral tradition. Yes, there were documents that came before the Gospels we have now (Q, the L source, the M source, etc.) but they also depended on oral tradition. Jesus did not write a handbook before he died. His teachings were in the memories of his disciples.

 

[hasantas]

Logos has a richer, more complex meaning than “Word,” yes, though in English it’s perhaps the best we could do. However, you seem to imply that the Logos being described in the opening of the Gospel of John is not the same as Jesus. Let me quote the entire prelude to John’s Gospel.

Logos is used for every instance of the Word, in this passage, and in this passage there is no shift in what is meant by it. It’s clear that the Word from the opening, who was described as being with God and being God since “the beginning,” is the same Word that became flesh, the same True Light that entered the world, and that the author is referring particularly to the man of Jesus Christ.

I will try to explain.

Jesus was word of God. Firstly we should define very clearly what it means. Body of Jesus is not some part of essence of God which incarnated. But God created body through His eternal word. That is explained in Qur’an which I had written in this thread. If God wish to something happen then it is enough to say be! and it is. So God said be! and it is.(For Jesus, and Jesus is to be word of God is metaphorical as Jesus is called “Son” and God is called “Father”)

And also soul of Jesus is not part of divinity. Because Jesus merely had human attributions with that soul.

Word became flesh means that God said be! and Jesus was created and born without father. Logos is one attributions of God and it is eternal. If that attribution became matterial then there should not be word(logos) in God. But that is not possible and is very comic because all attributions of God are eternal and they do not split and differ. And eternal being is out and beyond of time and matter.

So in the beginning was the word.That means the word of God was said by Himself to create Jesus without father.

Word was with God means that the word of God is eternal and it had not yet manifested in material world before creating Jesus.

And the word was God means that it was God to say be!(word) to create Jesus.

The born of Jesus was through miracle so that God state it in that way.

Note: I tried very much to comprehend doctrines but they conflict very much! And I cannot see them in verses of Gospels.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I will try to explain.

Jesus was word of God. Firstly we should define very clearly what it means. Body of Jesus is not some part of essence of God which incarnated. But God created body through His eternal word. That is explained in Qur’an which I had written in this thread. If God wish to something happen then it is enough to say be! and it is. So God said be! and it is.(For Jesus, and Jesus is to be word of God is metaphorical as Jesus is called “Son” and God is called “Father”)

And also soul of Jesus is not part of divinity. Because Jesus merely had human attributions with that soul.

Word became flesh means that God said be! and Jesus was created and born without father. Logos is one attributions of God and it is eternal. If that attribution became matterial then there should not be word(logos) in God. But that is not possible and is very comic because all attributions of God are eternal and they do not split and differ. And eternal being is out and beyond of time and matter.

So in the beginning was the word.That means the word of God was said by Himself to create Jesus without father.

Word was with God means that the word of God is eternal and it had not yet manifested in material world before creating Jesus.

And the word was God means that it was God to say be!(word) to create Jesus.

The born of Jesus was through miracle so that God state it in that way.

Note: I tried very much to comprehend doctrines but they conflict very much! And I cannot see them in verses of Gospels.

The Jesus of the Qur’an and the Jesus of the Gospels don’t have much in common. The same name and a few every day details about Mary, the virgin birth, etc., but that’s it. All the theological details are different.

And–I’m speaking as someone who is considering Islam–you can’t use the Qur’an to explain the Gospels, and you can’t use the Gospels to explain the Qur’an.

 

[hasantas]

I’m not sure why you say that. I’ve been investigating Islam for some time, and although I find a lot to admire, the hadith are one of the problems that stop me from converting. If you go to any number of Muslim web sites, they all stress the importance of the hadith for understanding the Qur’an–not just the chronology, but the meaning of different verses. I know that there is a small minority group that ignores or dismisses hadith entirely–maybe you belong to that group. But all other Muslims take hadith very seriously. But there are so many contradictions and problems, that it seems like a difficult problem. I take religion seriously, but I’m not prepared to spend 10 years trying to sort it all out.

First look at #83.

Yes hadiths are important to understand Qur’an correctly. Hadiths are second source of Islam and Faith. Hadiths and Sunnah explain the details of worships and verses. hadiths are very important.

For instance let’s assume that all Hadiths are not valid. Yet Islam and Faith stand in Qur’an very clearly.

Hadiths and Sunnah are very important for Fiqh. The issues of Fiqh are elaborated in Sunnah and Hadiths and they are about deeds and worships which is the way of understanding and implement of Sharia.

Hadiths were written very initially as verses of Qur’an. Qur’an verses were compiled in a book by Abu Bakr but hadiths were started to be compiled after about 150-200 years. Why did hadiths not be compiled in the beginning? One of reason should be that Muslims did not allow verses and hadiths to be confused.

Islamic scholars struggled vey much to relate hadiths correctly. Ofcourse there had been some problems. But we have thousands valid hadiths now. Christian ignore that they do not have the original text of their scripture but they see hadiths problematic! Even the problems in hadiths are not so serious as much as Gospels. Gospels conflict which others too.

 

[hasantas]

The Jesus of the Qur’an and the Jesus of the Gospels don’t have much in common. The same name and a few every day details about Mary, the virgin birth, etc., but that’s it. All the theological details are different.

And–I’m speaking as someone who is considering Islam–you can’t use the Qur’an to explain the Gospels, and you can’t use the Gospels to explain the Qur’an.

That is not true. Because Qur’an verify Bible. And if we consider both are words of God then they cannot conflict.(Bible is not direct words of God but through interpretations. There is no original text. Problem should occur from that)

 

[Servant19]

Let me explain a little bit more. In the culture of the Apostles, this is one of the ways they thought of to preserve the authentic teachings; now, in Judaism, unlike the Church where there is no Magisterium, it was a bit more decentralized so Jews had no central institution to turn to know what was and wasn’t the proper teachings of their faith. Since the Church has a Magisterium, they are the ones that interpret the Deposit of Faith, be it the written Tradition (Sacred Scripture, AKA the Bible), or the Sacred (oral) Tradition.

So obviously, Catholic children aren’t catechized just like Jewish children were (or still are in more orthodox circles, I assume), we have the Magisterium which explains to us what is (and if need be, what isn’t) the authentic Deposit of Faith.

This isn’t much of a surprise, since there’s a substantial nexus between Judaism and Christianity. In the Eastern Churches, where Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy is celebrated by the priest behind the holy or royal doors, what does that remind you of? Of the high priest who could only access the Holiest of Holies once a year.

So as you can see, the Jewish culture of the time of the Apostles is central to this whole issue.

Thank you Micosil, that makes a lot of sense

I assume oral Tradition contributes towards the writings of the early Church Fathers and the Saints throughout history culminating in the modern Catholic catechism?

.

 

[Servant19]

Other people have answered you, but I’ll give my own answer.

“Oral tradition” for the most part refers to what was generally accepted by the Church in the 1st century. But it does go beyond that–a couple example are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. These were proclaimed as doctrines in the 19th c., but up until then I suppose you could have called them “oral traditions.” In other words, there was a consensus in the Church that these things were true, but no explicit Biblical language you could find to back them up. (In other words, there is no Gospel passage that says “Mary was conceived without sin; she was the only person to be born without the stain of original sin.”)

As someone else pointed out, that’s the role of the Church (Pope, general councils, bishops). The Church decides what is authentic tradition and what is not. It’s not secret, it’s all in Church documents like the documents of Vatican II or the Catechism. All you have to do is read it.

Another way to answer your question is that the Epistles and Gospels are the result of oral tradition. They were based on oral tradition. Yes, there were documents that came before the Gospels we have now (Q, the L source, the M source, etc.) but they also depended on oral tradition. Jesus did not write a handbook before he died. His teachings were in the memories of his disciples.

Thank you Erika. I appreciate your time in giving me your understanding.

I can appreciate how oral Tradition was the only deposit of faith and teaching soon after Jesus ascended, and how efforts were made to record everything possible, for future posterity, as soon as was physically feasible.

What I cannot understand is the things like the Assumption of Mary etc taking so long to record and formalise. How can the inspired Word of God as recorded by the Gospel writers and Apostles miss such an important teaching?

.

 

[Servant19]

The Jesus of the Qur’an and the Jesus of the Gospels don’t have much in common. The same name and a few every day details about Mary, the virgin birth, etc., but that’s it. All the theological details are different.

And–I’m speaking as someone who is considering Islam–you can’t use the Qur’an to explain the Gospels, and you can’t use the Gospels to explain the Qur’an.

I would humbly disagree here Erika

I’m not a Muslim, however I can see tremendous compatibility between the Quran and the Bible. If sufficient cross-referencing is between within the Books and between the Books, there is a lot of clarification in relation to the spiritual Truths both books are portraying

.