Oral Tradition, is it infallible?

[guanophore]

Aren’t votes taken at the Councils?

Sometimes, but more often, consensus. But this is not the same as majority vote, as the voting members of Councils are comprised of those to whom preservation of the faith has been entrusted through Apostolic Succession.

These persons have a much higher level of faith formation and priestly ordination that laypeople do not.

Then why where people punished for teaching/believing differently?

The CC does not punish people for teaching or believing differently. Persons who have received Holy Orders or taken religious vows are obligated to obey the authority placed over them in the Church. If they disobey, they may be disciplined. These vows and holy orders are freely received, and not in any way coerced.

It was the religious wars/struggles and the struggle for religious freedom in Europe to realize the need for freedom of religion

It actually had more to do with economics and politics than it did religion. But Luther was a small pebble that dislodged and avalanche of hostility against the Church, most of it not related to religion/doctrine.

Sadly, Protestant and Catholic in some parts of the world are more like Democrat and Republican are to us in the USA only with much more hate and venom. It isn’t about what one believes, it is about who is in charge.

Since we can agree on this, let’s move forward. None of this is related to whether Sacred Tradition is infallible.

 

[guanophore]

That is what the real debate concerning Sola Scriptura and Sacred Tradition is about. Luther and the other reformers basically accused the Catholic church of adding to and/or creating new traditions that were never taught by the Apostles.

Actually, they did not. Luther’s complaints were largely about abusive practices, and most of them were confirmed as legitimate by the Council of Trent. Luther had some complaints about the concept of justification, but that has also been resolved.

The CC cannot “create new traditions” since the deposit of faith was complete at the death of the last Apostle. Complaints about human traditions, customs, disciplines and spiritual practices are in another category.

They accused the Catholic church of being in error because they didn’t follow the teaching of the New Testament which is the God Breathed Word of God.

I think they forgot that the NT is a Catholic book - written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic!

I agree, though, that what the Reformers interpreted was different than the faith we received from the Apostles. I also agree that what they observed was not consistent with either one. Men are always in need of reform. the teachings of Jesus are not.

But true Christians will remain faithful to the historic teachings of Christianity that all of Christianity has held since the beginning.

If this were true, there would not be such divisions =schisms. What has happened is that modern culture continues to create a divergence away from Apostolic Teaching. In 1930, all Protestants agreed with the CC that abortifacient artificial birth control was killing. Now we see that it has become as popular and moral as divorce and other practices that Jesus clearly stated are against God’s will.

 

[lanman87]

Wow. That means, instead of what we received from the Apostles, what is “true” is based on majority vote?!?!?

Please let me add that in the short run the majority of “Christians” can hold unorthodox positions. Arianism comes to mind. However, in the long run truth prevails. God is in control of both history, the present, and the future. The Holy Spirit will overcome our prejudices and guide the church into truth. That truth becomes apparent over time as it is adopted and maintained by the consensus of the church. For instance, we can look back and believe the books of the New Testament are what God revealed to the Church, not because a council approved the canon but because the church universally accepted the cannon. We can accept the Trinity as the truth because it is both rooted in scripture but also, after a long period of division, the Trinity became the universally accepted position of Christianity.

Those that are trying to accept homosexual marriage and whatnot are not only going against scripture, they are going against the historic universal teachings of Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant). Those that are not teaching the Trinity are in the same boat. It is not what culture today says is truth, it is what the Bible and the historic universal teachings of the church say is truth.

Also, keep in mind that there is a difference between moral teaching (right and wrong) and theological teaching (How God relates to us and works in us).

 

[guanophore]

For instance, we can look back and believe the books of the New Testament are what God revealed to the Church, not because a council approved the canon but because the church universally accepted the cannon.

Except that this never happened.

We can accept the Trinity as the truth because it is both rooted in scripture but also, after a long period of division, the Trinity became the universally accepted position of Christianity.

Only because of the Council, after which, divisions - schisms and heresies were clarified.

Those that are trying to accept homosexual marriage and whatnot are not only going against scripture, they are going against the historic universal teachings of Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant).

I think you will find that this will not matter. People will exercise their own right to determine what is true.

It is not what culture today says is truth, it is what the Bible and the historic universal teachings of the church say is truth.

If this were true, there would not be so many denominations.

Also, keep in mind that there is a difference between moral teaching (right and wrong) and theological teaching (How God relates to us and works in us).

So…God does not relate to us or work in us through moral teaching? I guess you are saying that a person can still be right with God, and espouse morals that are contrary to sound teaching?

 

[lanman87]

So…God does not relate to us or work in us through moral teaching? I guess you are saying that a person can still be right with God, and espouse morals that are contrary to sound teaching?

No, I’m saying the moral teachings of historic Catholics and historic Protestants aren’t very far apart. Theological, on some things we are miles apart but on moral issues it is more like yards apart. And sometimes evangelicals are more puritanical than Catholics. My Southern Baptist heritage was very strong against alcohol.

I jokingly told someone that as a Baptist child you are taught, “Don’t drink, don’t cuss, don’t smoke, don’t screw and don’t hang out with people who do”.

 

[Brendan]

Why would anything that Christ taught be false? Everything that He taught, by definition, would be true ( infallible).

And that would not change if the Apostles chose to write some of it down, or pass it other teachings along orally.

It would still be infallible, as it has Christ as it’s source, and He cannot err.

 

[MT1926]

There is not much we humans like to do more than disagree. We are stubborn and opinionated. God knows that much better than we do.

So God knew this going into the New Covenant, but you believe He decided it was best to allow us to continue, until the end of the age, disagreeing with one another. Instead of setting up a continuing line of succession, from the Apostles, to make sure what needed to be agreed on would not be ignored or forgotten?

If 90%+ of Christians understand things the same way then I’m happy to call it a Dogma.

How could you ever know that 90% agree? Not to mention if at some point 90% no longer agree does this mean it is no longer Dogma?

The opinion becomes dogma when it becomes accepted by Christianity as a whole.

So it comes down to what we humans want from God not what God wants from us?

If you look at the statement of faith or what we believe on a Baptist Website, a Methodist Website, a Presbyterian Website, a Assembly of God website and even a Church of Christ website you will see the vast majority of things are in agreement.

Sorry I don’t buy this statement. It might look on the surface like you agree on the “VAST MAJORITY”. However, if we put all you guys alone in a room, with no Catholics to unify against, I’m sure you would be having much of the same disagreements that you and I are having. You guys might be using the same words, but as we all know words have different meanings to different faiths.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

That is what the real debate concerning Sola Scriptura and Sacred Tradition is about. Luther and the other reformers basically accused the Catholic church of adding to and/or creating new traditions that were never taught by the Apostles. They accused the Catholic church of being in error because they didn’t follow the teaching of the New Testament which is the God Breathed Word of God.

Actually, Luther accused the Catholic Church of adding the traditions that he was unwilling to accept. Luther and the other reformers actually appealed to Sacred Tradition when it suited their theology. Take for instance Mary. Luther accepted and defended many of the teachings on Mary, not because it was scriptural but because of the Oral traditions. It was later reformers who came along and dropped these teachings because of their need to distance themselves from the Catholic Church.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

For instance, we can look back and believe the books of the New Testament are what God revealed to the Church, not because a council approved the canon but because the church universally accepted the cannon.

I hear this statement all of the time, could you please explain how does one look back through history and see that the New Testament was “universally accepted cannon” by the church?

I’m not trying to be rude here. I honestly want to know. What do you say and show to an agnostic to prove that the Bible is the word of God, that was universally accepted from the beginning? And that it has not become corrupt through all of those centuries it was solely in the hands of those corrupt Catholics?

Like I said pretend I am an agnostic. Because to be quite honest with you I think this is the whole point that a lot of non-Catholics don’t seem to understand. When you are speaking with Catholics, that know their faith, any attacks against the Church won’t really work. Why? Because if you are correct then you just pulled the rug out from under everything we believe, including the Bible. Which would actually make me become agnostic not protestant.

See you need to go back to the beginning. You see we truly believe the Bible is a Catholic book. We believe the Church canonized the books and was given the authority to interpret the Bible. If you take the Church away from us you just took away the Bible. Which means you need to start from square one and prove why we should even believe in the Bible in the first place? And more importantly why we should believe in your interpretation and not our own.

So basically, now that I’m agnostic why on earth would I believe and accept that the Bible is the Word of God? and what makes it an Authoritative rule of Faith?

God Bless

 

[Brendan_64]

What is the Catholic Churches official position on Oral Decree or tradition? Is it infallible? if so, on what biblical bases? If not, then why do you give it such blind trust?

You do know that the Bible didn’t exist for several hundred years after Christ’s death? What did the Church use during those times to authenticate her teaching?

On what basis do you trust the authenticity of the books that make up the New Testament? Personally I trust the authority of the Church to decide this (at the Council of Nicaea on AD 326 etc) but as this authority will have been exercised without the existence of an existing authentic Bible, do you trust that authority? If not, how can you trust your Bible?

It was through the authority of the Church (whose authority comes from God) that the Bible was authenticated.

 

[lanman87]

I hear this statement all of the time, could you please explain how does one look back through history and see that the New Testament was “universally accepted cannon” by the church?

Historically speaking. The canon of the New Testament evolved into the 27 books that were finally universally accepted as Canon. There was no council or single bishop who created the canon. It was created by a consensus of the churches. The vast majority of the New Testament canon was agreed upon very early on. Early on, some churches were using some books that others did not use. However, pretty much by the end of the 2nd century and certainly by the end of the 3rd century all the churches were using the same 27 books.

The council of Hippo and the council of Florence didn’t set the canon. They simply verified what was already being used in the various churches and had been used for a long time.

It is important to point out that while the final 27 book list took a couple of hundred years to have consensus. The vast majority of the 27 books were considered scripture very early. The Gospels and writings of Paul, James, Peter and John were considered scripture very early. As well as Acts of the Apostles that was written by Luke.

This is why one thing that gets under my skin a little is folks saying, you didn’t have the New Testament for 350 years. My only response is then why does the Didache, Clement, and other 1st and 2nd Century writings have so many quotes from something that didn’t exist?

 

[lanman87]

Sorry I don’t buy this statement. It might look on the surface like you agree on the “VAST MAJORITY”. However, if we put all you guys alone in a room, with no Catholics to unify against, I’m sure you would be having much of the same disagreements that you and I are having.

If you put any groups of people in a room there are going to be disagreements. Heck, I see a lot of disagreement among Catholics on this board.

The thing about Protestant/Evangelical groups is that we may disagree with each other but we also affirm each other as being part of the Universal church. And when some group comes along, say the Mormons, and tries to say they are part of the universal church they are rebuffed.

 

[jlhargus]

then logically the only way we would be able to truly and honestly understand the Word of God would be through handed down “oral tradition”.

For me the opposite is true. God’s word did not come from tradition, as you say, God’s word came directly from his mouth into the hearts and minds of the Apostles who were inspired to write. Oral tradition is an elusive shadow of un-recorded rumors, in my view. It would be my last place to look for the truth.

Hermeneutically, we can find a reliable and satisfactory interpretation of even the most difficult passages. It is not rocket science, just common sense and a face value method of treating scripture. We don’t need foot notes, we need a real encounter with the great teacher who said that He would teach us all things. 1st. John 2:27

JL: Wow, so easy, I wonder why there are thousands of contradicting denominations using bible alone. Could it be they all interpret the bible using there own traditions.

All faith groups have traditions, handed down, by which they see and interpret scripture. That’s why a Baptist interprets the same scripture differently than a Presbyterian or a Presbyterian differently than a Methodist a Methodist differently than others. Yet they will deny they hold traditions. Unless you can post a scripture, saying all Traditions are now in the scriptures, you are following a tradition of men.

which of the following traditions are true or false?

OSAS/can lose salvation, OSAS if sin never saved/OSAS if murder still saved. Must speak in tongues/no need to speak in tongues. Trinity/no Trinity, Holy Spirit God/Holy Spirit not God. Christ bodily resurrected/not bodily resurrected. Consubstantiation Christ present with bread and wine/symbolic only.

Millennialism/no millennialism. Bible alone community interpretation/ bible alone individual interpretation, bible alone/bible and Tradition, all oral Tradition now in scripture/all tradition not in scripture. Sunday worship/Saturday worship.

Baptism necessary/Baptism not necessary, baptism washes away sin/baptism doesn’t wash away sin. Believer’s baptism/infant baptism. Baptize in the name of Jesus/baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Saved the instant believe/saved when baptized. All future sins forgiven when saved/future sins not forgiven. Irresistible grace/resisible grace, no free will/free will.

The answer; Christ Sent One Visible Fellowship, not thousands, as an infallible teaching authority (magisterium), to teach the whole world, till the end of the world, Mt28:16-20. Telling them He would send the Spirit to guide them into all Truth, Jn16:13. Not hit and miss truth but infallible all truth (on faith and morals).
That’s why Paul calls the Church the pillar and ground of Truth, [2Tm3:15.

 

[Brendan_64]

If the Bible is the definitive authority for all things then the Bible itself could not exist as there would have been no authority to authorise it. Jesus did not write the Bible, but he did create a Church and give her the authority, through Peter, to bind and loose. The Church therefore had the authority to determine which of the many different books written after the death of Christ constituted a true, divinely inspired canon to make up the Bible.

 

[MT1926]

Historically speaking. The canon of the New Testament evolved into the 27 books that were finally universally accepted as Canon. There was no council or single bishop who created the canon. It was created by a consensus of the churches.

Ok I won’t argue this. However, who were these “churches” that came to this consensus? I mean if we are going to make a claim of “universal acceptance” shouldn’t we have a list of these so called churches? If not how do you know you aren’t just repeating something that was told to you?

The council of Hippo and the council of Florence didn’t set the canon. They simply verified what was already being used in the various churches and had been used for a long time.

What about the books that were deemed not to be scripture? Is there other evidence, other than these councils, that show these other books were not scripture?

This is why one thing that gets under my skin a little is folks saying, you didn’t have the New Testament for 350 years. My only response is then why does the Didache, Clement, and other 1st and 2nd Century writings have so many quotes from something that didn’t exist?

Not sure what they are trying to prove here. From my understanding there were many uninspired books that were being read at the masses as well. Maybe they mean we didn’t have a complete NT.

Don’t know.

Like I said in my other post. To claim the early “churches” all agreed doesn’t really hold much water from an agnostic point of view. So how does one prove the Bible is a rule of faith without pointing to specific points in history?

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

If you put any groups of people in a room there are going to be disagreements. Heck, I see a lot of disagreement among Catholics on this board.

I was speaking about authority, not a bunch of Christians. The point I was making was if you put the leaders of your churches (who hold the authority to speak on behalf of your churches) together they would disagree on the essentials.

I agree that non-authoritative people within the same community tend to disagree with each other all the time.

The thing about Protestant/Evangelical groups is that we may disagree with each other but we also affirm each other as being part of the Universal church. And when some group comes along, say the Mormons, and tries to say they are part of the universal church they are rebuffed.

By who’s authority? Sure you guys can get together and make the claim that you are and Mormons aren’t part of the universal church, but in the end isn’t this just your majority rules opinion?

Once again pretend I’m the agnostic looking into both groups. Why should I believe one groups interpretation over the other when neither one can give me any historical evidence to prove their claim is true?

Not sure if what I’m asking makes sense or not. But basically I’ve spoken to many non-Catholics on this board and it seems like they have to start with the other person, the Catholic, already accepting the Bible as the word of God and that is authoritative. When I question this fact the response I always get, which gets under my skin , is what you don’t believe it is? Like I said I believe it is the Word of God because I believe the Catholic Church was historically the Church founded by historical Jesus and because that same Church says so. I just want to know, and have never been told…how does a non-Catholics prove to an agnostic that the Bible is the Word of God?

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

Like I said in my other post. To claim the early “churches” all agreed doesn’t really hold much water from an agnostic point of view. So how does one prove the Bible is a rule of faith without pointing to specific points in history?

Well, believing the Bible is the inspired Word of God takes faith. There isn’t much difference to an agnostic if you say the Bible is the Word of God because A. The Catholic church says it is. or B: Christians have agreed for millennia that it is.

 

[lanman87]

By who’s authority?

By the Authority of God through the calling and gifting of the Holy Spirit on certain individuals to be pastors, evangelist, teachers, missionaries and so forth, and the affirmation of the church (Ecclesia), who recognizes and ordains those called and gifted by God to be Pastors, Evangelist, Teachers, and so forth.

 

[MT1926]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree here.

In my mind showing a historical argument that Jesus left us a visible authority to guide His Church and protect His teachings. Also showing that members of that Church died for what they believed, seems way more convincing than to say hey Christians have agreed for millennia, while at the same showing no historical evidence for who these Christians were, how they continued for millennia or how they were able to keep the Bible from becoming corrupt. Especially, when you at the same time believe the only Christians (safe guarding said Bible) that were around all those years were members of an organization that became corrupt.

Do you see what I’m getting at from an outsider looking in?

Just my thoughts.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

By the Authority of God through the calling and gifting of the Holy Spirit on certain individuals to be pastors, evangelist, teachers, missionaries and so forth, and the affirmation of the church (Ecclesia), who recognizes and ordains those called and gifted by God to be Pastors, Evangelist, Teachers, and so forth.

Once again as an outsider looking in how can these people prove they were given this Authority of God?

If we really break down what you say here all I need to do is to go out get a bunch of my buddies. Fill out the correct government non-Profit paper work, start up our own Ecclesial community and I too, as the founder with the affirmation of my buddies, can claim to have been given the Authority of God.

Do you see where I am going here?

God Bless