Oral Tradition, is it infallible?

[tgGodsway]

I think there is another piece of this puzzle MT. To the defiled all things are defiled and to the pure, all things are pure. We both know that God draws near the humble but resist the proud.

Whether we are Catholic or protestant, if we are not pure in heart, … truth will not come in large doses. You quoted it above,… so that they may entrust the teachings to FAITHFUL men. God is not obligated to share his truth with all of His body, only His friends.

Here’s a great passage for you. "If anyone loves Me, he will keep my WORD; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make our home (manifest) with him. John 14:23.

 

[guanophore]

No I did not say this.

Oh good! I am glad I misunderstood.

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.

Yes, but you are making an assumption that the fullness of Christ is found in the Scriptures, and not in the Church.

My trust in the scriptures is not blind. It is build upon testimony of 1st. Century apostles and gospel writers. I believe what they have said.

How is that any different than Catholic’s saying they believe the testimony of the 1st. Century Apostles and Gospel writers pointing to Sacred Tradition?

Again I agree with you. The context is not addressing the fact that God has placed teachers and the office of teacher in the body of Christ.

Is there some disconnect between the teachers God has placed and the content of the Teaching they were given?

I never said that people would teach themselves. I said that the anointing will do the teaching. This is not one in the same.

No, but how does one validate where the anointing is present? Cannot just anyone who reads the scripture and has their heart burning within them say that they feel the anointing?

This is not about IQ or formal training. It is about unfolding spiritual truth that otherwise would not be understood.

I agree, but we will also all agree that there is only One Faith, and One Holy Spirit, who does not contradict Himself. Therefore, if different people, all believing they have the anointing, conclude different positions, what is the problem?

 

[tgGodsway]

But how do you know it is the Spirit speaking to you and not your own mind deceiving yourself?

If I hear a word and that word is in contradiction to the inspired word of God, I dismiss it as a word from my own flesh, or from the devil. If I don’t know what God’s word says on any given subject, I run the risk of being deceived by a subjective word. It is imperative that I study God’s word.

 

[hope]

I haven’t read the whole thread so maybe this has already been said.

Scripture validates oral tradition.

I am not going to go through each and every one but if you check out each of theses scriptures they refer to things not recorded in scripture but accepted as Oral Tradition
Matt 23:2 ,Acts 20:35,1 Cor. 10:4,Eph 5:14,Heb. 11:37 ,Jude 9 ,Jude 14-15,
Matt 2:23 23 There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, `He will be called a Nazorean
You will not find this in the Old Testament. It is Oral Tradition.

 

[MT1926]

If we want to understand our freedoms as American citizens, we wouldn’t go to the local news paper to get their take on it. We would go to the founding fathers and their writings to find their “intent.”

I totally agree we wouldn’t go to the local newspapers. However, just like with the Bible you are misinformed, which is the reason why the basis for your reasoning is flawed not mine. We have no authority to go to the founding fathers writings. The authority to interpret the intent of the founding fathers is given to the Supreme Court not us. Just like the authority to intrepret scripture was not given to us.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

I think there is another piece of this puzzle MT. To the defiled all things are defiled and to the pure, all things are pure. We both know that God draws near the humble but resist the proud.

Whether we are Catholic or protestant, if we are not pure in heart, … truth will not come in large doses. You quoted it above,… so that they may entrust the teachings to FAITHFUL men. God is not obligated to share his truth with all of His body, only His friends.

Here’s a great passage for you. "If anyone loves Me, he will keep my WORD; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make our home (manifest) with him. John 14:23.

Sorry, I don’t follow you here. What does any of this have to do with the fact the Bible tells us that Tmothy taught faithful men to teach other faithful men so they could continue to hand on the teachings that originated from a Paul?

Sure John 14 is a great passage but St. John tells us here the one that loves God will keep a His word. Well in order to keep God’s Word first you would have to hear it and be taught it’s meaning by one of Timothy’s faithful men.

I still don’t see how any of these verses proves the Bible alone is our “blue print”.

God Bless

 

[tgGodsway]

Okay, I’ll have to stop after this one. It’s late. You said, “we have no authority to go to the founding fathers writings.” What is this view based on?.. You also said, “the authority to interpret the intent of the founding fathers is given to the supreme court not us” Two questions here: Who is the supreme court you speak of? and… on what authority do you say this?

When Paul wrote his letter to Timothy about inspired scripture, do you believe that all that was said, was personally written only for Timothy and no others?

Tradition tells us these personal letters were passed among the early Church for all to glean and obey. Thirdly, Paul, in that same letter, said, All scripture is given by inspiration …" Given to all of the body, no? or just given to Timothy.

From my understanding of things, the New Testament was written in common Greek deliberately, so that the commoner could learn God’s word. Was this not Luther’s gripe too.

I’ll wait for your answer tomorrow. Blessings to you MT.

 

[guanophore]

The line-in-the-sand- between false doctrine and true is found in the centerpiece. Christ is that centerpiece to which everyone must agree. So in that sense every Christian is “one” on this pivotal point of doctrine. I agree, we have a long way to go but the objective is to be one, in all truth.

Yes, and Jesus appointed Peter as the visible sign of unity in the Church. This is why the early Christians believed that all needed to be in unity with the Church in Rome, where the successor of Peter retains that visible sign of unity as the vicar of Christ.

Okay… nobody has asked me this question before. Great question. I can only speak for myself, not others when I say It all began with an encounter with Jesus Christ at Holy Rosary Catholic Church. He passed by me and drove me to the floor of the church in the middle of the Eucharist. I came to know him in that moment. From this point on, believing the scriptures became easy. I just decided to believe it was true.

I thank God for His claim upon you, and your answer to His call. But basically it boils down to your own personal experience of Jesus Christ, and your submission to it. Can not all say the same? Even those who arrive at diametrically opposed positions?

But these decrees all came centuries after the apostolic circle lived and died, and are far removed in terms of the region.

So you believe, since the term “Trinity” was not defined formally until AD 325, and was done in Nice (geographically removed from Palestine) that it is not a valid apostolic doctrine?

This is why the progressive revelation that comes through the papacy and councils is utterly sinful in my view.

I think you have confused the development of doctrine with “progressive revelation”. Catholics believe that public revelation closed with the death of the last apostle.

Doctrine is what was taught by the Apostles. Dogma is what has been proclaimed by the successors of the Apostles (the bishops), such as Trinity. Neither of them can be changed or reversed.

Disciplines are rules that are applied by region and by problem, and can be changed (like the wearing of a veil in church). Canon laws are laws that are applied to Catholics about the faith into which they were baptized. These can also change.

So there is no “progressive revelation”. There are new ways of understanding the once for all divine deposit of faith, and applications that respond to modern problems. For example, there was no in vitro fertilization in the first century, so the Church addresses this new technology.

 

[guanophore]

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

Did you know that this concept comes from Sacred Tradition?

But there is no biblical evidence to say that oral tradition is inspired by God.

I think we must be reading different scriptures.

1 Corinthians 14:36 What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?

Do you think that St. Paul is denying what he taught to the Church in Corinth was inspired by God?

Colossians 1:25
25 of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known,

It seems to me that Paul is persuaded that what he taught the Church was divinely inspired.

1 Thessalonians 1:8 For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedo′nia and Acha′ia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything.

What “word of the Lord” that was sounding forth do you think this is? How can it be anything but the oral teaching of the Apostles?

1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

The Word of God was received by the Church from the Apostles, and has continued to be at work in the believers from that day, until this. This is a scriptural reference to Sacred Tradition - The teaching of the Apostles.

1 Timothy 6:3
3 If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness,

The sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching of the Apostles are contained in Sacred Tradition.

When the new believers devoted themselves to the Apostles’ teaching, this is Sacred Tradition - the Word of God preserved in the Church.

 

[MT1926]

You also said, “the authority to interpret the intent of the founding fathers is given to the supreme court not us” Two questions here: Who is the supreme court you speak of? and… on what authority do you say this?

If you don’t believe me just google “who interprets the constitution “. I didn’t make up the rules the government did. If I’m a US citizen I abide by those rules wether I like them or not. If I’m going to call myself a Christian then I need to abide by the rules of the Church founded by Christ. Someone always has to have the authority and the final say. That’s how the world works.

When Paul wrote his letter to Timothy about inspired scripture, do you believe that all that was said, was personally written only for Timothy and no others?

No, I believe the meaning of what was written to Timothy was given to Timothy and no others. St. Paul commanded Timothy to entrust this meaning to faithful men who will continue to pass the meaning to other faithful men. So the oral tradition can exist along side the Sacred writings so men would not come along years later and claim that their personal interpretation was what the Apostles intended from the beginning.

Tradition tells us these personal letters were passed among the early Church for all to glean and obey. Thirdly, Paul, in that same letter, said, All scripture is given by inspiration …" Given to all of the body, no? or just given to Timothy.

I’m not sure where you are going with this. I agree with you regarding the importance of scripture, just don’t see how any of these verses prove we can interprete scripture without the faithful men who were appointed to teach?

From my understanding of things, the New Testament was written in common Greek deliberately, so that the commoner could learn God’s word. Was this not Luther’s gripe too.

From my understanding nearly all “commoners” were illiterate so not understanding why the inspired writers would be deliberately writing a book for people who couldn’t read what they wrote?

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

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.

You have given a good definition of Sacred Tradition. God inspired the Apostles to teach and preach. He put His word directly into the hearts and minds of the Apostles and prophets, upon whom the Church is built. This is Sacred Tradition. Some of it was later committed to writing.

Oral tradition is an elusive shadow of un-recorded rumors, in my view. It would be my last place to look for the truth.

I can understand why it would seem that way. A person who cannot accept that God is able to preserve His Word where He has placed it would be suspicious.

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.

I agree with you, but not everyone has common sense (it is not common, after all) and the vast majority of readers have never heard of hermeneutics, much less learned any principles. They would also not know what a “face value method” might mean. My point is that people interpret scripture based upon their own experiences and education, or lack of it.

We don’t need foot notes, we need a real encounter with the great teacher who said that He would teach us all things.

Again, I agree, but clearly, a broad variety of people who claim to have had an encounter with the great teacher still come to opposite conclusions.

When you say “early Christianity” what you mean, and prepared to validate in historical record, is various sources outside of the Apostolic circle.

On the contrary, the earliest post Apostolic writings are those who are written by the successors of the Apostles. I am not sure how you define “circle”, but clearly these writings were done by those who were baptized and taught by the Apostles. They are a most reliable source of how the early church understood the teachings of the Apostles.

You point to oral tradition to say something the written word doesn’t say. What a dilemma.

It is not a dilemma for us, as we have always accepted that the NT was never intended to be a complete compendium of the faith. We have preserved the two sources of Apostolic Teaching in both forms, as was commanded:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

 

[guanophore]

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.

The fact that you do not accept the validations does not negate them.

We read the NT differently, so we understand the contents differently. You read through the lens of Protestantism, and we read through the lens of Sacred Tradition. Naturally, we will come to different conclusions.

The traditions passed down from the Apostles are obscure at best

For all those that were separated from them during the Reformation, they become more and more obscure as time passes. Protestantism has continued to drift further and further away from them. All the original reformers affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary, and now, this Sacred Tradition has been “obscured”. They all affirmed infant baptism, and this has now become “obscured”. They all believed that God hates divorce, and that abortion was a sin. Obscurity continues to grow.

 

[fhansen]

MT1926:

But how do you know it is the Spirit speaking to you and not your own mind deceiving yourself?

If I hear a word and that word is in contradiction to the inspired word of God, I dismiss it as a word from my own flesh, or from the devil. If I don’t know what God’s word says on any given subject, I run the risk of being deceived by a subjective word. It is imperative that I study God’s word.

I’m sure it’s been quoted:
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thess 2:15

A classic example of how Tradition works is in interpreting John Chap 6. The ancient Churches, east and west, don’t even need to interpret it, since the issue was settled for them since the beginning, and later supported by early fathers as well. But Protestant Sola Scriptura adherents argue plausibly both ways, for and against the Real Presence, as if it was only a matter of who has the best exegetical method. Theology becomes a best-guess endeavor without the (name removed by moderator)ut of the Church’s lived experience.

 

[fhansen]

Okay… nobody has asked me this question before. Great question. I can only speak for myself, not others when I say It all began with an encounter with Jesus Christ at Holy Rosary Catholic Church. He passed by me and drove me to the floor of the church in the middle of the Eucharist. I came to know him in that moment. From this point on, believing the scriptures became easy. I just decided to believe it was true.

Catholics believe Scripture is true too, just not everyone’s interpretation of it.

 

[lilypadrees]

Okay… nobody has asked me this question before. Great question. I can only speak for myself, not others when I say It all began with an encounter with Jesus Christ at Holy Rosary Catholic Church. He passed by me and drove me to the floor of the church in the middle of the Eucharist. I came to know him in that moment. From this point on, believing the scriptures became easy. I just decided to believe it was true.

That’s funny. I’ve known Jesus all my life and was baptized (we called it “Christening”) and Confirmed in the Catholic Church and had an experience in a Protestant church (my mother was raised a Protestant) that made me leave Protestantism behind and return to the Catholic Church full time where I receive Him each day in the written Word and in the Eucharist.

 

[Francis]

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.

Before the foundations of the world God in his plan of salvation has chosen Mother Mary to be His Mother.in not everything is written in the bible as said in John 21:25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.Catholicism is not a “Sola scriptura” religion. We claim the Bible and an oral tradition dating back to Jesus himself as mentioned in the bible verse. This “faith of our fathers” has been passed down and preserved from the apostles unto the current times.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.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.
Titus 1:3 in due time he revealed his word through the proclamation with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior, Titus Bishop of the Island of Crete of the Catholic Church .
2 Thessalonians 3:66 Now we command you, beloved, 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 received from us.
John 17:17 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.John 12:48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my word has a judge; on the last day the word that I have spoken will serve as judge, .you even reject the word of God on tradition.

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”;

early Christianity” what you mean, and prepared to validate in historical record

Your problem is getting the Apostolic circle

oral tradition to say something the written word doesn’t say. What a dilemma.

sorry to say, your use of such words and language,show your not genuinely seeking the truth but came here, just for mere arguments,one is a confused protestant,who doesn’t accept even the very Word of God.

 

[Francis]

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.

yes 500 years of Protestants formation, of building a building without a foundation because its human origin,which means it will never last, easily refuted with the word of God in Acts 5:38 So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!” Matthew 7:26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand.like (the Protestants have done) 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its fall!”

JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF started the Catholic Church,which will never fail or end Acts 5:39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!” and THE POPE who stands in the person of Christ. Matthew 16:16-18 7 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Psalm 12:6 The promises of the Lord are promises that are pure, silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.2 Peter 1:3 His divine power has given us everything needed for life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4 Thus he has given us, through these things, his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust, and may become participants of the divine nature.**Jeremiah 3:15 ‘And I will give you shepherds =(The Pope successor of St Peter ) after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.Matthew 7:24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock( Mt16:18 Peter). 25 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock.

Isaiah 28:16 therefore thus says the Lord God,See, I am laying in Zion(Mary) a foundation stone(Jesus), a tested stone,a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation:“One who trusts will not panic.”Zechariah 9:9: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion(Mary)! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king comes to you. Triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey.”

Matthew 21:42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the scriptures:‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone;this was the Lord’s doing,and it is amazing in our eyes’?

So God plan and work is mess to you? Jeremiah 29:11 ,Gen 3:15

 

[tgGodsway]

Did you know that this concept comes from Sacred Tradition?

If that were true we wouldn’t have the continuous “revelations” that come from St. Peter’s chair would we?

 

[po18guy]

"I will send you another Paraclete - When He comes, He will lead you into all truth. "

Very clear, declarative sentence.

Best not to complicate or over-think this.

 

[tgGodsway]

1 Corinthians 14:36 What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?

Do you think that St. Paul is denying what he taught to the Church in Corinth was inspired by God?

As I’ve mentioned at least five times on this site, I CAN trust oral tradition, as long as it does not conflict with the written word of God. The word of God has the final say in matters of doctrine. So if oral tradition compliments, and supports what we find in scripture, I am sooooo good with that.