Oral Tradition, is it infallible?

[tgGodsway]

Well, first of all Spyridon, I think your comments on “Sacred tradition” and “oral tradition” were eye-opening. I learned something new. Thank you.

Please tell me who made these decisions down in Church history? I am curious to find out how it was decided.

To your comment of “laboring for my cause” as you say. I found this forum on a Catholic radio station. I was surfing the radio from my car one day and landed on a Catholic radio station. This was unusual for me, and so I decided to listen in for a while. I actually kept it on the same channel in my car for over a week, just listening.

To my amazement but rather “shock” I began to pick up on an on-going theme. The theme can be best understood by the slogan, “come back home to the Catholic Church.”

This theme became more obvious to me once I deliberately searched for it in everyone’s speech. Almost every sentence the radio announcer, or the radio show personality said, was laced with the word Catholic. Almost every sentence was compared to something the protestants were doing or saying.

I began to realize that the words Catholic and Protestant were commonly used words in their everyday speech about God. And of course the protestants were always painted to be the bad guy.

Then an even greater light bulb turned on in my head. “The Catholics are still fighting in the Protestant Reformation!” Now I get it.

In my circle of Christianity, the words Catholic or Protestant, are non-existent. The arguments we have on this sight would be shocking to most people in my affiliation. We are not fighting YOU, but you are fighting us.

We do not need to fight this battle. In my view the protestant reformation is over and has been for years. In actuality, we need another reformation because the ground we have won has decade.

But nonetheless, I decided to click the link provided by the Catholic Channel. I decided to talk to some Catholics. Wow, … I found out that you guys are still angry and suspicious of us reformers. LORD,… how can this be? How can such a large body of people still be fighting this kind of fight?

Who will represent our side to these people?.. I can do my part. I cannot convert anyone Spyridon, but I can be a voice for God as I’m surrounded by these many opposing views. I thank God that this site allows such fairness. If we were in my home Church, Holy Rosary Catholic Church, I would be thrown out for saying the things I say.

 

[deMontfort]

Really? I’d direct you to the writings of RC Sproul, D James Kennedy, and James White among others, then come back and tell me again who’s still fighting the Reformation.

 

[tgGodsway]

I hear your point, and I am aware of these people, but I was talking about my own local affiliation. My Church. These themes are non-existent.

 

[guanophore]

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

Exactly my point. We don’t have any revelations. The Chair of St. Peter, along with the Councils, can clarify, explain, apply, and develop doctrine, but nothing can be added to the once for all divine deposit of faith.

I understand that for those who are separated from Apostolic Tradition, it may seem like “new revelations”, but they are not. Any more than the Trinity was “new revelation” in 325 AD.

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.

Yes, and what we understand that you mean by that is your PERCEPTION of the written word.

The word of God has the final say in matters of doctrine.

Of course we are in agreement on this point. It is just that we also consider Sacred Tradition to be the Word of God, which is not to be separated from the Written Word of God. The verses above clearly state that the oral teaching of the Apostles is the Word of God.

Then an even greater light bulb turned on in my head. “The Catholics are still fighting in the Protestant Reformation!” Now I get it.

Not unless you consider that the Reformation is ongoing. But we are following the Apostolic command:

Jude 1:3 Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

If continued conflicts did not still exist, then we would not have to contend!

In my circle of Christianity, the words Catholic or Protestant, are non-existent. The arguments we have on this sight would be shocking to most people in my affiliation. We are not fighting YOU, but you are fighting us.

The fact that your circle does not recognize they have embraced Reformation theology does not change the fact that they have. A good number of them are likely baptized Catholics, who never learned their faith, and abandoned it to become “bible christians”.

I found out that you guys are still angry and suspicious of us reformers. LORD,… how can this be? How can such a large body of people still be fighting this kind of fight?

I did not know you considered yourself some kind of reformer.

 

[guanophore]

If we were in my home Church, Holy Rosary Catholic Church, I would be thrown out for saying the things I say.

Actually, you have already thrown yourself out by embracing doctrines they consider to be heresies. Parishes are intended to nurture the spiritual growth of the faithful, and most do not do apologetics. Personally I think it is a shortcoming, as there are as many in those pews who need it as there are outside the Church.

But you are right that places such as this are needed in order to create and maintain dialogue. We will never be able to resolve our differences if we cannot at least identify them and learn about them.

 

[tgGodsway]

Do you believe that Adam and Eve were born without original sin?

Do you believe that Mary is the new Eve?

Do you believe that John the Baptist was born regenerated?

Adam and Eve were not born into this world, they were created by the hand of God. Neither of them were sinners until the fall.

There is no compelling biblical evidence that Mary is the new Eve in my view.
And NO, I do not believe John the Baptist was born regenerate.

guanophore, where were you going with all of this?

 

[guanophore]

And NO, I do not believe John the Baptist was born regenerate.

guanophore, where were you going with all of this?

Just curious. The Church has always believed that John the Baptist was baptized by Christ when Mary visited Elizabeth. He was considered to have been conceived with original sin, but born without it.

Sometimes people forget that Adam and Eve were created without sin, so it does not seem that God would or could create His Own Mother without original sin.

 

[tgGodsway]

Exactly my point. We don’t have any revelations. The Chair of St. Peter, along with the Councils, can clarify, explain, apply, and develop doctrine, but nothing can be added to the once for all divine deposit of faith.

I understand that for those who are separated from Apostolic Tradition, it may seem like “new revelations”, but they are not. Any more than the Trinity was “new revelation” in 325 AD.

okay guanophore, here we go again. So… nothing new has been added, therefore I should be able to go into the inspired record and find all that I find which came from St. Peter’s chair. Right? This very inspired record that makes claim to what is “doctrine” and correction? (2 Tim. 3:16) right?

Why can’t I find even one eye-witness to even hint in the direction of Mary’s sinless birth, life, and assentation? What a profound miracle claimed by all Catholics! … yet all you can give me is an un-recorded voice of tradition without the foundational circle of believers to support it. And actually, through written scripture, they contradict it.

The Pharisees, through their tradition added hundreds of laws all to explain the divine law. These new laws were passed down in oral tradition. Jesus rejected them calling them, the traditions of men.

When God has his hand on the message, it is validated upon the mouth of two or three real witnesses so that it is preserved in each generation. This is why Isaiah’s word (for instance) was not ONLY oral, but placed into real parchment, so that it would preserve in new generations. My goodness, what would Isaiah’s word say without preservation in parchment? no telling. Human, sinful, nature is not capable of transporting the truth of God’s message by voice alone into the next generation. We are too bias and opinionated to NOT defile the message. God knew this and provided scripture to transport and transcend in each new generation and culture.

 

[guanophore]

okay guanophore, here we go again. So… nothing new has been added, therefore I should be able to go into the inspired record and find all that I find which came from St. Peter’s chair. Right? This very inspired record that makes claim to what is “doctrine” and correction? (2 Tim. 3:16) right?

Indeed yes, except that you have rejected the other half of the inspired record. It makes sense that you cannot “see” such things, when you are missing half the “pages” so to speak.

Since you are claiming 2 Tim 3:16 as a source, let us peruse this passage:

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and[a] profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

St. Paul is speaking here about the Sacred Tradition within the Jewish faith in which he ws raised by his mother and grandmother. The Sacred Writings here are the Septuagint accompanied by the Midrash.

It would be difficult to make the case from this that Paul is referring to the NT, only part of which had been written.

The CC teaches the Scriptures can lead us to faith in Christ, but that they are not formally sufficient, in the sense that they do not interpret or apply themselves to our daily life. Unlike the Children of the Reformation, Catholics have never believed that the NT was intended, nor can function, as a full compendium of the faith. This is why we believe Jesus founded a Church.

This passage states that Scripture is “profitable” in these tasks, which were given to the Church. Scripture can profit us in teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. It is most profitable in the hands of those who God has called and gifted to these duties.

11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; Eph. 4

 

[fhansen]

Does the Dormition of Mary, or her Assumption, conflict with Scripture?

 

[guanophore]

Sola Scripturists are fond of presenting this passage in Timothy in support of being able to find everything needed in Scripture, but if this were the case, why did Jesus waste his time and gifts on a Church? Why provide apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to equip the saints, if one can be fully equipped by just the Septuagint?

The fullness of Christ and His teachings are found in the Church. Scripture reflects this fullness, but is only part of the deposit of faith.

All that being said, I can also acknowledge that you are unable to “see” Marian doctrines in the scripture, reading it as you do through an anti-Catholic lens. You will not find sufficient biblical support for Mary as the Mother of all Living under the New Covenant. You will not find enough support for her assumption, or her identity as the Ark of the New Covenant. I could not find it either, when I tried to function under the SS paradigm.

Why can’t I find even one eye-witness to even hint in the direction of Mary’s sinless birth, life, and assentation?

This is what happens when you read through anti-Catholic lenses. You can’t “find” these things. Your perception filters them out.

What a profound miracle claimed by all Catholics! … yet all you can give me is an un-recorded voice of tradition without the foundational circle of believers to support it. And actually, through written scripture, they contradict it.

There is not any Sacred Tradition that has not by now been recorded. And we understand the testimony of that "foundational circle’ differently, dont’ we?

Certainly the paradigm through which you read the scripture must contradict it.

The Pharisees, through their tradition added hundreds of laws all to explain the divine law. These new laws were passed down in oral tradition. Jesus rejected them calling them, the traditions of men.

Yes. The CC also has something similar called canon law. Jesus did not reject all of the human traditions, only those that contradicted God’s revelation. But these are not the same as Sacred Tradition, which is the Word of God dwelling in the Church.

Human, sinful, nature is not capable of transporting the truth of God’s message by voice alone into the next generation.

Yes I agree. this is why the Church needs the gift of infallibility. Only God is able to preserve His Word where He has placed it.

 

[fhansen]

Remember that the gospel was understood and preached before a word of the New Testament was written. And that message was held by a select group. Philip was a member of that group and his help was necessary for the Eunuch to be able to understand OT Scripture, which he was completely unable to comprehend on his own. Meanwhile there were others, outside this group, already preaching false gospels. Philip’s group constituted the Church, established by God to receive, preserve, and spread the true gospel: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

 

[tgGodsway]

Again, for the 20th. time. I do not have a problem embracing Church tradition. I support it. Until or unless that tradition comes into contradiction with the inspired word of God. You think I am rejecting oral tradition. No… to me, oral tradition is a carbon copy of written word, until or unless that tradition contradicts the inspired word.

Paul said his doctrine did not come from MAN… but God. Therefore, when he preached it orally… he set up some pretty strong ground rules found in Galatians 1. He said, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” Gal. 1:8.

So, Paul included himself or even an angel who preaches anything different than what he preached, is disqualified. I say YES and AMEN TO ORAL TRADITION, as long as it keeps the ground rules given by Paul who was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

So, now we must go back to St. Peter’s chair in light of Paul’s requirements and check off everything that is of God and everything that is not of God. By the way, this rule applies to all Christians in every faith.

Paul was the living epistle when he preached orally but eventually Paul died and in order to preserve with accuracy, his words, we collect those words preserved in parchment.

 

[guanophore]

I do not have a problem embracing Church tradition. I support it. Until or unless that tradition comes into contradiction with the inspired word of God.

Yes, your PERCEPTION of the inspired Word of God. You perceive through anti-Catholic lenses, so naturally you will “read” it with a different outcome.

No sacraments, no sacramental priesthood, not infant baptism, etc, etc. But when Catholics read it, we see all these things, because this is the faith we received from the Apostles.

You think I am rejecting oral tradition.

Only parts of it. Look, you accept the NT, which is a product of Sacred Tradition. You accept Trinity, which is also.

Protestants are defined by which parts, and how much, of the Sacred Tradition they reject.

Paul said his doctrine did not come from MAN… but God. Therefore, when he preached it orally… he set up some pretty strong ground rules found in Galatians 1. He said, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” Gal. 1:8.

Exactly! This is precisely why Catholics cannot accept the doctrinal innovations of the Reformation. For us, they constitute “a different gospel”. It is not that we want to keep “fighting the Reformation”, but we are obligated not to find ourselves accursed by accepting something contrary to what we received from the Apostles.

So, now we must go back to St. Peter’s chair in light of Paul’s requirements and check off everything that is of God and everything that is not of God.

I agree. You eliminate certain things because you do not have the fullness of what is from God.

Paul was the living epistle when he preached orally but eventually Paul died and in order to preserve with accuracy, his words, we collect those words preserved in parchment.

Some of what He taught is in writing. Some is in Sacred Tradition (liturgy and prayers).

 

[tgGodsway]

Yes, your PERCEPTION of the inspired Word of God. You perceive through anti-Catholic lenses, so naturally you will “read” it with a different outcome.

No sacraments, no sacramental priesthood, not infant baptism, etc, etc. But when Catholics read it, we see all these things, because this is the faith we received from the Apostles.

guanophore whenever you cannot answer my questions with a substantive reply, you resort to pejoratives such as I am anti-Catholic. I am pro- body of Christ both in the Catholic circles and Evangelical.

 

[guanophore]

guanophore whenever you cannot answer my questions with a substantive reply, you resort to pejoratives such as I am anti-Catholic.

I do believe you are pro Body of Christ. And having an anticatholic pair of glasses does not necessarily make you anti-Catholic. I am talking about the lenses, the perceptions.

 

[tgGodsway]

Exactly! This is precisely why Catholics cannot accept the doctrinal innovations of the Reformation. For us, they constitute “a different gospel”. It is not that we want to keep “fighting the Reformation”, but we are obligated not to find ourselves accursed by accepting something contrary to what we received from the Apostles.

Well then, you are no different than us. You want to preserve the truth contained in scripture. You feel it is your duty to be salt and light. You know what? some protestants also have a St. Peter’s chair. No, not a literal chair, but metaphorical for sure. In that chair, many protestants are hell bent to say, Our understanding is the RIGHT WAY. This grieves the Lord because Love is not present in their claim. I am speaking in general terms here. both groups are wrong! and God will pass by both and use someone else to preach the gospel. Its kind of like the Democrats and the republicans. Both are right and both are wrong. But neither side admits to it. God will raise up an outsider to get the job done.

 

[guanophore]

God will raise up an outsider to get the job done.

Maybe that is you tgG! Maybe you are the continuing “Reformer” born into the world to show all of us how we err, missing the mark of the Truth! May God richly bless your anointed ministry in His service!

Even those of us in the WRONG can pray for your success, right? Or will God not hear our prayers because we have not signed on to the “different gospel”?

 

[tgGodsway]

ahhh… sarcasm. We both know that we are in a war of words and ideas. There are some on this site who want everyone to NOT ask questions and just submit to what is already established in Catholicism.

Well, it’s too late for that. We are in the age of internet and instant information. questions are asked and people want substantive answers. In the end, we will all stand before our savior to give an account of all that we have invested. Some with 5 talents, some with 3 and some with 1. Those who invested the most will only throw their crowns at their savior’s feet. There will be no more Democrats and Republicans.

 

[tgGodsway]

. 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.

consider the scope of this. I agree to your premise about Timothy and how he passed the truth to faithful men who in turn passed it along. But… the gospel was to go out to the whole world in every culture, every tribe, every nation under heaven. Oral teaching alone would never preserve the spirit of what Timothy received.

If you believe this would, you must also believe a line of 10 people receiving a whisper in their ear, at the start of the line, with a distinct message will come out at the other end of the line with the exact message. It never does.

God knew this too. His word needed to be preserved in the many cultures, tribes and nations. Translation alone is a huge milestone to cross. But it was God’s idea to set in stone all that needed to be said. Oral tradition can only be a carbon copy, a clone, of the written word inspired with each sentence.

I have no beef with oral tradition, only the obvious contradictions or lack of checks and balances. If oral tradition says XY and Z, but the written word says neither, the checkbook is not balanced.

If I hear an Evangelical say, my tradition says “you must speak in tongues in order to be saved!” My response says, … what says the scriptures? this word needs to be balanced out by biblical voices either confirming or denying what was said.