Oral Tradition, is it infallible?

[lanman87]

Saint Peter denied Our Lord three times. Yet, Our Lord gave him the Keys to the Kingdom to bind and loose matters of faith and morals. That charism does not prevent Saint Peter from sinning, but from promulgating error when defining faith and morals.

Let me ask it another way. If someone is in a state of mortal sin do they still pocess the charism? Or does God’s special spiritual gifts stop when you commit a mortal sin?

 

[AugustTherese]

Let me ask it another way. If someone is in a state of mortal sin do they still pocess the charism? Or does God’s special spiritual gifts stop when you commit a mortal sin?

Donatism. Google it. A bishop’s sacramental efficacy, or charism of infallibility for the Pope, does not depend on his moral state.

 

[lanman87]

Donatism. Google it. A bishop’s sacramental efficacy, or charism of infallibility for the Pope, does not depend on his moral state.

I knew that sacraments given by a priest or bishop that was in mortal sin are still valid. I did not know that the Catholic church teaches that a Pope in mortal sin maintains the ability to infallibly define dogma. I would seem to me that if they are spiritually dead in their sins then any special spiritual gifts would die as well.

 

[lanman87]

The creeds are Oral tradition. The earliest written form of the Creeds dates to the 300’s. Why would you accept them?

The principle of sola scriptura does not reject all Oral Tradition. It measures oral tradition against the plumb line of the New Testament writings. Oral tradition that is found in the New Testament writings are upheld. While those traditions aren’t binding in the sense that we don’t have to do everything the same way the early church did, we still affirm that they are valid expressions of the Gospel message.

For instance, we can agree with the Apostles Creed but have no obligation to recite it in our services.

 

[AugustTherese]

For instance, we can agree with the Apostles Creed

And, the Apostles Creed, along with the Nicene Creed, does not cite or quote Sacred Scripture once. Not once!

Just imagine that! The Early Church Fathers did not go to Scripture to decree the creed that would define and confess the Trinity. The Creeds are from Oral Tradition!

 

[lanman87]

And, the Apostles Creed, along with the Nicene Creed, does not cite or quote Sacred Scripture once. Not once!

But they contain what the Bible teaches.

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

And, the Apostles Creed, along with the Nicene Creed, does not cite or quote Sacred Scripture once. Not once!

But they contain what the Bible teaches.

Of course! Tradition and Scripture are never to be pitted against one another! However, Tradition came straight from the mouth of Our Blessed Lord and transmitted through the Apostles and their successors. Our Lord and the Apostles did not practice ‘sola scriptura’, and neither should any honest Christian.

 

[lanman87]

Of course! Tradition and Scripture are never to be pitted against one another! However, Tradition came straight from the mouth of Our Blessed Lord and transmitted through the Apostles and their successors. Our Lord and the Apostles did not practice ‘sola scriptura’, and neither should any honest Christian.

Well, because they contain what the Bible teaches they are shown to be authentic expressions of Christianity. If they said something the Bible doesn’t teach then they would only be claims of authentic Christianity that cannot be verified to be the true Gospel that is contained in the New Testament.

 

[MT1926]

The principle of sola scriptura does not reject all Oral Tradition. It measures oral tradition against the plumb line of the New Testament writings. Oral tradition that is found in the New Testament writings are upheld.

Ok but this is the part that confuses me. Who is given the authority to decide which oral tradition is and isn’t upheld in the Sacred writings? I mean it’s not like the Church doesn’t use Biblical writings to back up the Pope, Mary, Confession, The Real Presence. It’s just that when non-Catholics read those verse they say they don’t agree with the Church’s interpretation therefor on THEIR OWN authority they claim the Apostles didn’t mean that and reject the Oral Tradition.

I’m not making a claim here I’m simply asking why they believe they were given the authority to say someone else’s interpretation is wrong?

God Bless

 

[tgGodsway]

I mean it’s not like the Church doesn’t use Biblical writings to back up the Pope, Mary, Confession, The Real Presence

Do they?.. I’m sure if that was true, you would have quoted the proper scriptures in support of these doctrinal stances. But maybe it is true. I think it comes down to one common factor. As it turns out, the CC is just like the many protestant denominations on this one basic point: they all have their “interpretation” of certain passages, just like the Methodist do on theirs and the Baptist do on theirs.

You have every right to interpret Mt. 16 (Peter as Pope) the way you do. The Pentecostals have every right to believe that in order to be saved you must speak in tongues (as some believe) based on certain scriptures they interpret. and so on . … But the CC tries to put herself in a special class, above the fray using oral tradition or any other means necessary to say, we get the last word on these matters and we alone have the correct interpretation all based on Catholic authority. It’s not that simple.

Ianman87 is right, many popes throughout history were grievous sinners and needed repentance and remorse over their sin just like the rest of us. Just because they could sit on St. Peter’s chair wouldn’t miraculously change them and cause them to speak infallibly. Sanctification has no short-cuts. There is no special class of elitist, only those who place themselves there.

 

[lanman87]

Who is given the authority to decide which oral tradition is and isn’t upheld in the Sacred writings?

We are all given the charge to be faithful to the gospel message of Christ. If you came to sincerely believe, as the reformers did, through your study of scripture and history, that the message of the church was not being faithful to the message of the Gospel, wouldn’t you protest as well?

If the accepted authority is leading you down the wrong road, wouldn’t you reject that authority and seek another way? That was the attitude and reaction of the reformers.

 

[MT1926]

How about we stick to our discussion of 2 Timothy 2, instead of going off subject into the discussion I am having with Ianman87.

Thanks,

God Bless

 

[tgGodsway]

Okay MT… what about “what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

 

[MT1926]

Okay MT… what about “what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

Well the other day you said…

You throw a difficult passage at me and let’s see what I come up with MT.

So I responded…

Sure we never finished discussing…

2 Timothy 2:2 And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

 

[MT1926]

We are all given the charge to be faithful to the gospel message of Christ.

Amen, but this isn’t really an answer for what I asked.

If you came to sincerely believe, as the reformers did, through your study of scripture and history, that the message of the church was not being faithful to the message of the Gospel, wouldn’t you protest as well?

Sure totally agree, but if you are honest with yourself and with God you would also be willing to admit that your protest is based on your OPINION that you were given the Authority to say that the Church is not being faithful. This still doesn’t answer the question or let us ignore the question…

I’m not making a claim here I’m simply asking why they believe they were given the authority to say someone else’s interpretation is wrong?

If the accepted authority is leading you down the wrong road, wouldn’t you reject that authority and seek another way? That was the attitude and reaction of the reformers.

Sure but how would you truly know you are on the wrong road if you only look at the map (The Bible) and refuse to look at the Legend (the Oral tradition that helps us correctly interpret the bibles meaning).

It just makes no sense to me why Jesus would allow the Apostles to hand us a Bible with no way of knowing who’s interpretation was correct. Seems to me someone who would do this is purposefully wanting division and not unity.

God Bless

 

[pablope]

Thank you for all the hard work here. I appreciate it. But my question is not answered. Oral tradition can only shadow God’s written word nothing more. The Apostles preached in person and passed along their traditions in person in the first century. Agreed. By the second and certainly third century, the Church was very well aware of all the letters passed about by the apostles who were dying off by persecution or natural death. Those letters were inspired before the ink dried, long before anyone in the 4th. century put their stamp of approval on them.

Okay…Question for you: how do you prove the gospel of Mark was written by Mark? And not just anyone that went by the name of Mark?

Where is the chapter and verse where Mark claims he wrote the gospel of Mark?

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.

You have this the wrong way.

http://www.mark-shea.com/tradition.html
Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much. For this common teaching, life and worship is a living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32. The plant doesn’t look like the seed, but it is more mustardy than ever. And this is an entirely biblical pattern, as we discover when we consider the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.
Suddenly the whole thing looks perversely Catholic, don’t it? So did apostolic Tradition change Scripture or what?

But the real issue here has more to do with decrees and pronouncements offered in more recent years that directly contradict holy scripture. This is why scripture is our guide and not tradition.

See, here is a real dilimna for you…how do you know what contradicts Holy Scripture? What will be your basis to determining what is contradictory?

It is not so much that pronouncements contradict Scripture…it is your interpretation that varies. “Tradition” guides our understanding of Scripture. I hope you will find time to read this article…and I will offer an excerpt below:

Ecclesial Deism | Called to Communion

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, [COLOR=“Blue”]tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.[/COLOR]

 

[pablope]

AugustTherese:

The Pope is not fallible on faith and morals.

The problem with that is there have been a bunch of unfaithful Popes. How can you be unfaithful (even to the point of murder) and yet still be infallible on faith and morals? That is like trusting the Gambino family to write and uphold the laws on murder and racketeering.

And there have been those on the protestant side too…or do you think is only the Catholics who do these?

Yes, how can you be sure the pastor your listen to weekly is not sinful as some of the our bad popes?

Does that make what he preached on Sunday less authoritative?

 

[pablope]

MT1926:

Who is given the authority to decide which oral tradition is and isn’t upheld in the Sacred writings?

We are all given the charge to be faithful to the gospel message of Christ. If you came to sincerely believe, as the reformers did, through your study of scripture and history, that the message of the church was not being faithful to the message of the Gospel, wouldn’t you protest as well?

If the accepted authority is leading you down the wrong road, wouldn’t you reject that authority and seek another way? That was the attitude and reaction of the reformers.

So…what does the Bible say about authority…if they were leading down the wrong road…to pray for our leaders and trust God to correct them?

Or reject and rebel against them?

 

[lanman87]

And there have been those on the protestant side too…or do you think is only the Catholics who do these?

Yes, how can you be sure the pastor your listen to weekly is not sinful as some of the our bad popes?

Does that make what he preached on Sunday less authoritative?

There is a difference between being a Pastor and being responsible for a local congregation and speaking ex-cathedra as Pope.

Normally if a Pastor is found out to be in sin (adultery, porn, whatever) he is removed from his position by the local church.

 

[lanman87]

So…what does the Bible say about authority…if they were leading down the wrong road…to pray for our leaders and trust God to correct them?

Or reject and rebel against them?

Maybe God was using the reformers to correct the church.