Oral Tradition and the Magisterium

[Jacafamala]

I’ve been over at a Protestant debate board for about a week or so. It seems to me that the real crux of the problem is that they don’t trust Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church. So, I’d like to start a thread on all the reasons one should trust in these.

PS-I think this place needs a “Sacred Tradition” forum.

 

[Eucharisted]

The Bible is a part of Apostolic Tradition
Biblical Interpretation and Oral Tradition
Sacred Tradition and the traditions of men

The Catholic Church is our Teacher and Mother and her teaching authority is the Magisterium, which is the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him. Hence, the full name is “Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church”. The Magisterium is at the service of the Word of God (Scripture and Tradition) because the Church is at the service of Jesus Christ; Mother Church preserves and preaches the Word by her life and her teaching.

The Magisterium of the Church, along with Tradition and Scriptures, comes from Israel. This is apparent from the Torah and Oral Torah - which are inseperable in Judiasm, with the latter coming from the former - and from the leaders of Israel, who served God and His Torah.

 

[OchsFam]

It seems to me that most protestants believe in a local “magisterium” and local “traditions”. While some go as far as believe in a confession of faith which is generated by a larger “magisterium” based on older “traditions”, most protestants have a board of elders or something of the like to decide their beliefs. The result is a local “magisterium” that works to the same effect as the Catholic Magisterium. In fact, many of these boards can vote to change their confession of faith. The problem is the Bible is not a local book.

I think this is a good way to start a discussion with a protestant because maybe they will understand why we feel there is importance of having a universal (Catholic) Magisterium to discern the universal Word of God. This is also true for the oral Traditions. If we base our Magisterium on the oral Traditions of a universal system, we should agree with the Church Fathers and thus with the universal oral Traditions. When a local “magisterium” is introduced, they are beginning to have a local oral tradition establish their beliefs.

When you actually get down to it, you must also begin to look into the qualifications one has to make the decisions a magisterium must make. Besides an understanding of Greek and Hebrew, one must have an understanding of Old Testament Jews and common language of the time. This puts a lot of these elders in local protestant denominations outside. It also brings up something many protestant denominations would like to ignore and that is the Torah. One must really have a firm grasp on this document to truly understand what it is Jews believed about what passages to really understand what Jesus and the Apostles may have been saying. This would not be possible for a protestant since they believe in scripture alone, so again we are left with a lack of qualification to even begin discerning what scripture means.

In the end, one should trust the Catholic Magisterium and oral Traditions because we bring all of these things together. A proper qualification to interpret scripture, a belief in a universal Truth that transcends time and space, and the recognition of this Truth in light of local pressure to change. The Catholic Church goes through much pain to ensure we continue this oral Tradition and the Holy Spirit has guided her through 2000 years of trials and tribulations. In the end, we can look back to the beginning and see that the Magisterium has never failed and we are in agreement with the oral Traditions established by Christ Himself. If this is not enough to garner trust of a protestant, then I question if any argument would suffice.

God Bless.

 

[liquidpele]

I’ve been over at a Protestant debate board for about a week or so. It seems to me that the real crux of the problem is that they don’t trust Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church. So, I’d like to start a thread on all the reasons one should trust in these.

PS-I think this place needs a “Sacred Tradition” forum.

translationparty.com/#4810969

 

[Eucharisted]

translationparty.com/#4810969

translationparty.com/#4811475

 

[MarcoPolo]

I’ve been over at a Protestant debate board for about a week or so. It seems to me that the real crux of the problem is that they don’t trust Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church. So, I’d like to start a thread on all the reasons one should trust in these.

Internet Protestants often will never give a serious consideration as to why they make up the unscriptural rule of “I don’t trust it unless it is in the book I was told is the Bible.” The very rule is so man-made on its face. No such Protestant will ever get past the formation of the canon of Scripture by the Church in the first few centuries. They will trust that Church’s authority up until the formation of the Canon (minus 7 books around Luther’s time). And then discard any other authoritative decision by that Church as they see fit. In other words, the effect (the Bible) is somehow greater than its cause (the Church). A metaphysical fallacy de facto.

The reason why we trust in the Church and Scripture is based on the Resurrection. There are many witnesses to the events of salvation history, those early Christians were martyred for their beliefs, they testified to the miracles of Jesus, saw Him die, saw Him alive 3 days later, and had the faith spread to every corner of the earth like no other religion when they should have been received with laughter if it was all so false. And miracles continue to be performed to this day, there are the saints with scientifically validated stigmata, atheists converted on the spot at Fatima as I understand, scientifically inexplicable Christian miracles, etc…etc… The entire package deal is very strong that God came Incarnate. That same Jesus Christ validated that early Church’s authority, validated what they considered Scripture, etc…

 

[Jacafamala]

Some great posts here, thank you so much. I’m going to take some time looking at it all and I’m sure I can keep a lot of it book marked as I’m going to need this.

 

[IronHammer]

I have come to the same conclusion after reading endless threads on this forum debating Sacred Tradition and the Authority of the Church. Almost all of the Protestant arguments boil down to, despite the evidence, that they simply can’t stand the thought of submitting to the Authority of the Magesterium. And since they must have some authority, they try to put the bible up as their authority, but of course, they blind themselves to the fact that the bible is only a document, not an authority. Over and over they refuse to admit the bible must be interpreted.

 

[Jacafamala]

I have come to the same conclusion after reading endless threads on this forum debating Sacred Tradition and the Authority of the Church. Almost all of the Protestant arguments boil down to, despite the evidence, that they simply can’t stand the thought of submitting to the Authority of the Magesterium. And since they must have some authority, they try to put the bible up as their authority, but of course, they blind themselves to the fact that the bible is only a document, not an authority. Over and over they refuse to admit the bible must be interpreted.

This is it in a nutshell, and it leaves the individual Protestant having to figure out what God is trying to tell them. The Calvinists debate the Arminians and they both are “trying to follow the bible”. I honestly feel sorry for them.

 

[Jacafamala]

translationparty.com/#4810969

Sorry, a little late getting back to you.

Have you heard of the dead sea scrolls? The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in a cave a few decades back now. they belonged to a sect of Jews from before 100 BC. The scrolls prove that the Bible has been translated very accurately over the centuries.

The scribes weren’t like the silly translator machine in your link.

From apologetics press:

INTEGRITY OF THE TEXT

…however, the findings at Qumran have confirmed the integrity of Daniel’s text. Gerhard Hasel listed several strands of evidence from the Daniel fragments found at Qumran that support the integrity of the MT (see 1992, 5[2]:50). First, for the most part, the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts of Daniel are very consistent in content among themselves, containing very few variants. Second, the Qumran fragments conform very closely to the MT overall, with only a few rare variants in the former that side with the Septuagint version. Third, the transitions from Hebrew to Aramaic are preserved in the Qumran fragments. Based on such overwhelming data, it is evident that the MT is a well-preserved rendition of Daniel. In short, Qumran assures us that we can be reasonably confident that the Daniel text on which our English translations are based is one of integrity. Practically speaking, this means that we have at our disposal, through faithful translations of the original, the truth God revealed to Daniel centuries ago.