Oral Tradition, is it infallible?

[tgGodsway]

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?

 

[Maximilian75]

Oral Decree or tradition

Could you clarify what you mean, perhaps give an example?

 

[Fauken]

Is it infallible? if so, on what biblical bases? If not, then why do you give it such blind trust?

It’s funny, because the Catholic answer is that Oral Tradition (capital T!) is what created Holy Scripture. So yes, we find it to be infallible. The biblical basis being that there would be no Bible without it.

 

[JimG]

It has to be infallible since it was the way the Faith was handed down during the first few centuries of the Church’s existence, before the books of the bible were written or the canon of the bible decided upon. Jesus commanded that the apostles go and preach the gospel to the whole world, which they did, without waiting for books to be written and compiled.

 

[tgGodsway]

Oral decree as I understand it comes from papal pronouncements governed by Church councils, both together work hand in hand as “tradition.” Maybe I’m wrong. I will be glad to be corrected here.

 

[Maximilian75]

Ah, okay.

Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers Tract

There’s the Pope…

 

[Fauken]

And, following up on @Maximilian75, one on Scripture and Tradition.

Scripture and Tradition | Catholic Answers

 

[semper_catholicus]

Well, is it fallible?

 

[tgGodsway]

It’s funny, because the Catholic answer is that Oral Tradition (capital T!) is what created Holy Scripture. So yes, we find it to be infallible. The biblical basis being that there would be no Bible without it.

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. 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.

 

[Fauken]

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.

And how were they passed around? How did they exist before they were compiled into the Bible?

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

First of all, did you read the link I posted? It’s admittedly a bit lengthy, so I can quote parts of you prefer.

 

[tgGodsway]

And how were they passed around?

Are you asking what kind of parchment did they write on? what?

 

[tgGodsway]

First of all, did you read the link I posted

not yet. give me the gist of it please.

 

[Fauken]

First of all, there seems to be a misunderstanding as to what tradition is. To Catholics, there are two types of tradition: little ‘t’ and big ‘T’ tradition. Little ‘t’ tradition is what you would call “man-made”. For example, purple is the liturgical color for Lent and Advent. Big ‘T’ Tradition is also called Sacred Tradition. It is truth given to us by God itself. It is infallible. It cannot be wrong. The tradition Jesus condemned is little ‘t’ tradition. Of course, we agree that such tradition should never overshadow the truth. But big ‘T’ tradition cannot be wrong, because it is truth.

What you call the Bible during the time of the Apostles, we call Oral Tradition. It is through Oral Tradition and the Church’s indefectibility that the Bible was compiled. By the time the Bible was compiled, a process which took about 300 years if I remember correctly, there were dozens upon dozens of books claiming to be Scripture. But what was truly Scripture was what was passed down by Tradition. From the article:

“The first Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians “through the Lord Jesus” (1 Thess. 4:2).”

“This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19). And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit “Christ’s word” to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.”

 

[tgGodsway]

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.

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.

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.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Oral decree as I understand it comes from papal pronouncements governed by Church councils, both together work hand in hand as “tradition.”

I am not sure where your term “oral decree” comes from? I have heard it in legal terminology, but not in terms of the Catholic Church.

 

[tgGodsway]

the pope will decree a matter when he sits on his st. Peter’s chair. Ex-cathedra. infallible. This decree is elevated to the level of inspired scripture. I believe it was 1859 when the then Pope decreed that Mary was born sinless for example.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

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

What would those decrees and pronouncements be?

 

[tgGodsway]

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.

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. God is no longer speaking to His church in this manner.

 

[Fauken]

What you’re talking about here is not Oral Tradition, but the Magisterium.

 

[Francis]

Catholic Church states traditions as the orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm
ARTICLE 2
THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION
74 God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”:29 that is, of Christ Jesus.30 Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:
God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.31
I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION
75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32
In the apostolic preaching. . .
76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
• orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;33
• in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.34
. . . continued in apostolic succession
77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36
78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38