Oral Tradition, is it infallible?

[Francis]

Pope Benedict XVI gave a beautiful catechesis on Catholic Tradition in late April, 2006. He says that we miss the profound meaning of Catholic Tradition if we see it only as the handing on of a static Revelation.
More than that, it is the active, continuous work of the Holy Spirit in our particular time: it makes real and tangible “the active presence of the Lord Jesus in his people, realized by the Holy Spirit”.
Seeing Catholic Tradition as the active presence of Christ through the work of the Spirit is precisely what accomplishes the “transmission of the goods of salvation” to us:
Thanks to Tradition, guaranteed by the ministry of the apostles and their successors, the water of life that flowed from the side of Christ and his saving blood comes to the women and men of all times. In this way, Tradition is the permanent presence of the Savior who comes to meet, redeem and sanctify us in the Spirit through the ministry of his Church for the glory of the Father.
This reality of the divine action of the Holy Spirit within the Church is essential to understanding Catholic Tradition. It is what makes Sacred Tradition something far different than mere human traditions.
Through that same action of the Spirit, Catholic Tradition incorporates us into the Communion of the Saints. It ensures the connection “between the experience of the apostolic faith, lived in the original community of the disciples, and the present experience of Christ in his Church.”
The Pope concludes:
Tradition is the living river that unites us to the origins, the living river in which the origins are always present, the great river that leads us to the port of eternity. In this living river, the word of the Lord…: “And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age”, is fulfilled again (Matthew 28:20).
Through Catholic Tradition, the Holy Spirit works to bring the grace and truth of Christ into our own lives.
It’s real. And it’s living right now in the Catholic Church!
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
(John 1:14)

1 Corinthians 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. 2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.

2 Thessalonians 3:66 Now we command you, beloved,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they[c] received from us.

 

[Francis]

As I just mentioned, the sinless-ness of Mary was just one. Vatican 1 and 2 made many doctrinal stances either supporting, or changing doctrine from previous councils.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is a Marian doctrine taught by the Catholic Church and held by a number of group since early Christianity which asserts that Mary (the mother of Jesus was “always a virgin, before, during and after the birth of Jesus Christ.” because Jesus came out of her like a light, a miraculous birth. John 1:4, 5 in Him was life and the life was the light of all people.5 The light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not overcome it.

Galatians 4:26 But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free (from sin)and she is our mother ( MARY). (MOTHER MARY IS SINLESS and Mary retain "perpetual virginity), 27 For it is written, “Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children, burst into song and shout, you who endure no birth pangs; for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous than the children of the one who is married.”

But these decrees all came centuries after the apostolic circle lived and died, and are far removed in terms of the region. This is why the progressive revelation that comes through the papacy and councils is utterly sinful in my view

The N.T. revelation is closed at the book of Revelation.
[/quote

correction, its all done by God remember Jesus never leaves his bride the Catholic Church.Matt 16:16-18 gates of hell shall never prevail against the Church. Matthew 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

“Woman (Mother Mary = women of Genesis 3;15 and women of Revelations 12:1,2 ),
Isaiah 66; 7 before she was in labor she gave birth; Before her pain came upon her she delivered a son.8 who has heard of such a thing? Who has seen such things? Shall a land be born in one day? Shall a nation be delivered in one moment? Yet as soon as Zion was in labor she delivered her children.9 shall I open the womb and not deliver? Says the Lord; shall I, the one who delivers, shut the womb? Says your God. Jeremiah 31:22 How long will you waver, O faithless daughter (Eve)? For the Lord has created a new thing on the earth: a woman (Mother Mary) encompasses a man (Jesus).If Enoch and Elijah who were born sinners and led a life of penance, but yet was assumed into Heaven, How much more the Mother of God born without the original sin and lived a holy life, will she not be in the heaven praying for all of us

Luke 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Mother Mary is without a single stain of original sin, throughout, so being the Mother of God, who is full of Grace, is most powerful intercessor, before God to prayer for us, we sinners. The Holy Spirit Himself is speaking through St Elizabeth and testifying about Mother Mary.

 

[MT1926]

Where is the proof that tradition played such a role to the degree that you say it did? I don’t see it, especially in light of the negative connotation Jesus gave tradition. The Pharisees abused it and lorded over the people.

This question got me curious.

Do you think it is possible for someone to take the Bible we have today and “lord their interpretation” of the Bible, over people?

And if so wouldn’t this put ones own interpretation of the Bible in the same category as the “tradition” Jesus was speaking of here?

Thanks,

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

But there is no biblical evidence to say that oral tradition is inspired by God. There is no way to track an unrecorded word in the first century. If it were recorded, it would be reflected and validated from holy scripture. It is not treated this way.

Using this same train of thought there is no Biblical evidence to prove ones own interpretation of scripture. Unless, the Apostles wrote down the meaning of every verse, 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”.

Let’s be intellectually honest here, both sides can come up with great arguments of why a verse of scripture should be taken literally or allegorically. How do we know who is correct?

It’s pretty easy to see that the meaning of many verses in the Bible are not self explanatory. If the Apostles intended the faithful to rely solely on the Bible they would have put footnotes on every page.

God Bless

 

[tgGodsway]

This question got me curious.

Yes it happens all day long in many circles. What’s your point MT?

 

[tgGodsway]

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

 

[tgGodsway]

aaaa…two peas in a pod.

 

[tgGodsway]

The perpetual virginity of Mary is a Marian doctrine taught by the Catholic Church and held by a number of group since early Christianity which asserts that Mary (the mother of Jesus was “always a virgin, before, during and after the birth of Jesus Christ.”

When you say “early Christianity” what you mean, and prepared to validate in historical record, is various sources outside of the Apostolic circle. Your problem is getting the Apostolic circle to agree to your points. You point to oral tradition to say something the written word doesn’t say. What a dilemma.

It is like building a building without a foundation. What does it mean when you have 1500 years of un-validated doctrine on Mary ( un-validated by Apostles and gospel writers)? it means what a mess.

You allusion to Galatians 4:26 is an irresponsible interpretation in my view. You impose an idea not found in the context. You force the passage to speak to something it does not speak to. Any first year hermeneutics student would pick up on that Francis.

The traditions passed down from the Apostles are obscure at best, but I’m sure they reflected the heart and soul of each Apostle. This I agree.

 

[MT1926]

Yes it happens all day long in many circles. What’s your point MT?

And if so wouldn’t this put ones own interpretation of the Bible in the same category as the “tradition” Jesus was speaking of here?

My point is isn’t the way groups interpret the Bible basically their “oral” tradition?

Therefore, isn’t this the proof that some sort of oral tradition has play a “MAJOR” role in what we believe.

I’m not being argumentative here. I’m just trying to point out that we all follow an oral tradition, it just seems the Catholic Church is the only one willing to admit the necessity of oral tradition. Just because you aren’t willing to admit you have oral tradition in your church doesn’t prove you don’t follow your own oral tradition.

Your thoughts?

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

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.

This is just your opinion, which is fine we all have them. Can you honestly say your interpretation of the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with what you were taught in your tradition. I agree the Apostles knew what they were writing and what it meant, but there is no way any honest person can believe what they wrote is plain as day. If so we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

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

If it is that reliable and easy why is there so many different interpretations?

We’ve spoken in the past and there are many non-Catholics on these forums who disagree with some of your interpretations. So who has the authority to say they are correct?

Thanks,

God Bless

 

[tgGodsway]

If oral tradition is defined as a combination of practice and doctrine. the answer is YES. Many Christians follow the traditions of their denomination without ever asking the WHY question to any given point of doctrine or practice. I am not one of them, as least I try not to be.

I try to examine everything I believe under the microscope of scripture. Can I be wrong? of course I can. But if it does not pass the smell test, I am forced to throw it out.

For example: In many protestant circles it is a tradition to, quote, “walk the isle” if you want to receive Christ as savior. Much of it is based on a passage where Jesus said, If you acknowledge me before men I will acknowledge you before my Father in heaven."
So a public walk down the isle became almost a condition to be saved. This tradition is utter nonsense.

Other’s say, you must literally and physically “confess” Christ as savior to be saved based on a Romans 10 passage. So confessing before the congregation is an accepted tradition in order to be saved.

In some traditions, hymn music is God’s music only …
All of these are traditions that you may love or hate, but what matters most is: do they line up with what we see patterned in scripture. Scripture is the blue-print, much like Oral Tradition would be for you.

blessings,

 

[tgGodsway]

If it is that reliable and easy why is there so many different interpretations?

We’ve spoken in the past and there are many non-Catholics on these forums who disagree with some of your interpretations. So who has the authority to say they are correct?

Well, you make a compelling point. If men’s hearts and minds were all equal, in terms of understanding and wisdom, then we would all spit out the same answers. If I do not study to show myself approved of God, then my answers will be tainted with bias. God forbid.

But if we all share one common reality, that Jesus is the Christ, then competition between circles of belief should diminish. In other words, we are all on the same team, whether protestant or catholic. Not all protestants see it that way, and not all Catholics either.

But 1st. John tells us that we all have an anointing who will teach us all things. … how can we begin from this premise if we are more concerned with our affiliation?

 

[Spyridon]

Sacred Tradition is infallible, but ST and “oral tradition” are not synonyms.

Sacred Tradition does include oral tradition, but it also includes beliefs and doctrines, practices and ceremonies which were passed down by instruction both oral and written as well as demonstration.

Trying to shoe horn “Sacred Tradition” to mean “oral tradition” - probably for some purposes of creating strawmen - aint gonna work.

@tGGodsway let me ask you a question. How long have you labored for your cause on these forums? And how many Catholics have you “won over” to your 19th and 20th century Protestant traditions by your arguments?

 

[joeybaggz]

I’m not so convinced that we would have no bible without oral tradition.

Well, you wouldn’t have an Old Testament, that’s for sure! No one wrote anything down until Moses in about 1250 B.C. From Abraham to Moses, about 600 years, no one wrote anything down.

 

[tgGodsway]

Well, you make a good point. When Moses wrote the creation story down in1250 BC, it wasn’t because he had such a brilliant memory. Actually he didn’t. It wasn’t because all of tradition prior to his time got all of the fact straight.

It was because, as the Apostle Peter put it, “prophecy never came by the WILL OF MAN, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” 2nd. Pet.1:21.

By divine revelation, Moses knew all of the fact, and he knew them infallibly.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not so convinced that we would have no bible without oral tradition. The letters, epistles, gospels, were all passed around and established the faith for many, long before it was combined into one book and considered the word of God.

This is one way that Sacred Tradition is preserved. It is called thesensus fidelum.

The reason the letters, epistles, and gospels were passed around is BECAUSE they were believed to be the Word of God. And in fact, I think you will agree that they were inspired as soon as they were written, not when the Church acknowledged that they were.

What established the faith was the Teachings of the Apostles. The writings reinforced this faith.

Where is the proof that tradition played such a role to the degree that you say it did?

You have already stated that you do not believe that God could lead the Church into “all Truth” and that there is no such gift as infallibility. Given that you do not believe Jesus would keep His promise, I can 't imagine what “proof” would satisfy you.

Sacred Tradition is the Word of God placed in the Church by Christ, and preserved there by the Holy Spirit.

I don’t see it, especially in light of the negative connotation Jesus gave tradition. The Pharisees abused it and lorded over the people.

This is certainly understandible. If you don’t make any distinction between sacred tradition and human tradition (culture & practices) then of course you could not accept that one is infallible while the other is especially condemnable when it contradicts the will of God.

 

[guanophore]

Oral tradition can only shadow God’s written word nothing more.

This is an assumption you are making. The preaching of Jesus and the Apostles was not found previously in writing. They quoted from the Septuagint, but Jesus frequently taught “you have heard it said” or “it is written - but I say to you…”

The idea that there was nothing new to teach that did not exist in the OT seems very strange.

Since none of the NT existed for at least 20 years, I guess you are saying that everything the Apostles taught during that time was not valid?

The Apostles preached in person and passed along their traditions in person in the first century.

Some of these were human traditions(small t) and some were Sacred Traditions with a capital T.

Those letters were inspired before the ink dried, long before anyone in the 4th. century put their stamp of approval on them.

I am glad we can at least agree on this point. The same is true of the Apostolic Teaching that was preserved infallibly in the Church by the HS. This Sacred Tradition is what guided the selection of the inspired books for inclusion in the NT. How else could the Church know which were valid?

But the real issue here has more to do with decrees and pronouncements offered in more recent years that directly contradict holy scripture.

One must start at the beginning, though. Of course if you believe there was never such a thing as Sacred Tradition protected infallibly by the Spirit in the Church, then no pronouncements will have an validity, such as the canon of the NT, the Trinity, the hypostatic union, Sunday as the Lord’s Day, etc.

However, if there was a time when the HS guided the Church into “all Truth” then the issue becomes, when did that guidance stop? When and how did the CC go “off the rails” and fail to discern the HS preserving Truth in the Church?

This is why scripture is our guide and not tradition.

The decrees and pronouncements don’t go against Scripture. They can’t because they both come from the same Source. But they do go against your perception of what Scripture is saying.

For Catholics, there is not an “either/or” with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We consider both to be inspired and inerrant.

The reason why scripture is your guide “and not tradition” really has more to do with rejecting the authority appointed by Christ.

 

[MT1926]

Scripture is the blue-print, much like Oral Tradition would be for you.

blessings,

I understand what you are saying and agree with some of what you have said. However, your statement here confuses me?

Could you please show me where Jesus specifically told us that Scripture is the blue-print?

I mean if Jesus did not specifically command us to use Scripture as our blue-print wouldn’t that make your statement here, which you claim to be fact just part of your church’s “ORAL” tradition.

Thanks,

God Bless

 

[tgGodsway]

You have already stated that you do not believe that God could lead the Church into “all Truth” and that there is no such gift as infallibility

No I did not say this.

 

[tgGodsway]

Could you please show me where Jesus specifically told us that Scripture is the blue-print?

Those were my words, I wasn’t quoting a verse. Blue prints are the foundational plans to a construction project. We are called to build upon the foundation of Christ. I used it as an expression.