Oral Tradition, is it infallible?

[Benadam]

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

The pattern of Tradition since the beginning of history.

Since the beginning ,the People of God have made the Word of God visible with their lives. These became an expression of the Word in stories that were remembered and told, passed down generation to generation.Oral Tradition followed the lives of the people of God. God before them and Oral Tradition behind them. Eventually, maybe what is known by mouth is written down as a testimony of the People. The tradition is understood by the People who lived the stories. The People continue their lives and telling their stories, teaching and learning it’s lessons.and the written testimony preserves the heart of the stories and becomes an invaluable tool to teach and preserve the relationship with the Word formed by the People.

 

[tgGodsway]

Benadam, you said “what is known by mouth is written down as a testimony of the people.”

Did you mean to say: what was written down came from the people. Was it formed by the people? …

Our discussion today is about two things: (1) about whether or not tradition is an inspired source, and (2) whether or not we should elevate it as such, to a place of infallibility.

From what I understand, Catholics say yes to both.

In the days of Israel, God would use prophets to speak His word. It was oral, until it was written. I agree to this. Both the oral preaching in the moment it was preached was inspired by God, and the written record of what was said, was also inspired and infallible.

I agree. But if the oral preaching was fundamentally different than what was written down it should cause Israel to pause. There would be a breakdown between the two. Some would side with the oral preaching and claim it to be correct. Other’s would side with the written word and claim it was correct.

It’s like a checkbook. You cannot spend money without recording what you spent in the ledger. If you claim that the spent money was legitimate, but it was not reflected in the written ledger, there is a problem.

I am simply going to the one who says they did the spending, to ask them what happened? Where did the money go?.. if they say, “don’t worry about it, … it was a legitimate purchase.” I would not be convinced, because the checkbook ledger says something different.

It might be a poor analogy but the two sources of divine truth (oral tradition and inspired word) must have the feature of carbon copy. If we lean on the oral tradition without seeing it recorded by the Holy Spirit, it will be like a car without the proper alignment. It veers off in one direction. There is no balance.

 

[PJM]

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?

Not in and OF itself unless it in from the Chair of Peter; on Faith or Morals.

Very much oral tradition of the Early Church has been verified or debunked by Rome after the fact. So Acceptance of a teaching approved by the Ordinary magisterium; even if NOT declared to be Infallible; nevertheless makes that teaching mandatory for belief and acceptance of mind and heart on Faith and Moral Teachings,

GBY,
Patrick

 

[tgGodsway]

Correction it was pope Pius IX on December 8th. 1854.

 

[MT1926]

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.

This got me curious. Do you believe everything that St. Paul taught was written in his epistles? Because it seems to me that the way you use Galatians 1 as defense of your view point, that oral tradition is a carbon copy of the written word, would have to mean St. Paul taught nothing more than what he wrote.

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

There are some on this site who want everyone to NOT ask questions and just submit to what is already established in Catholicism.

There may be, but I cannot expect any Protestant or person who has espoused Sola Scriptura to do such a thing. Protestants have been steeped in anti-Catholic rhetoric for over 500 years. How can anyone expect them to suddenly relinquish what they have always believed is true?

There will be no more Democrats and Republicans.

One facet of American Evangelicalism is the democratic mindset. People who have been born here have this national heritage of “dont’ tread on me” individualism that leads them to believe that the Church is some kind of democracy or republic, where everyone’s personal opinion matters.

Oral teaching alone would never preserve the spirit of what Timothy received.

This is why we have both. Scripture enjoins us to preserve both equally. There is no scriptural directive that we jettison what we received from the Apostles that is not in Scripture.

Oral teaching alone would never preserve the spirit of what Timothy received.

Such a statement could only be made by a person who does not really believe God is able to preserve His word where He has placed it.

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.

Indeed, but your example itself demonstrates that two different people can read the Scripture and make opposing conclusions.

 

[MT1926]

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.

We’ve already discussed this, obviously you refuse to do the research and stick to your misinformation. Please do the research, 2000 years ago 10 people had no problems conveying the exact message they received. The majority of the communities were illiterate not stupid. The human body is an amazing thing, it compensates when there is a difficiency. They couldn’t read or write but they could memorize stories and hand them on word for word from generation to generation.

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.

This makes no sense, you freely admit that Translations are nearly impossible without mistakes yet you are sticking to your guns that God never intended oral traditions of how we are to interpret his word. I can’t believe you are unwilling to admit how foolish It would be to hand down a document to future generations without also telling them what it means.

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.

I totally agree with you hear. However, this proves my point. This same Evangelical claims to be guided by the Spirit and will pull proof texts out of the Scriptures to prove his position. To me the simple fact that this can even occur is proof positive that God did not intend everything we need to know to be condensed to the books of the Bible.

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

Our discussion today is about two things: (1) about whether or not tradition is an inspired source, and (2) whether or not we should elevate it as such, to a place of infallibility.

From what I understand, Catholics say yes to both.

I don’t think this is the case. For us, Sacred Tradition (the teaching of the Apostles) is different than human tradition. As the Word of God preached and taught by the Apostles, humans have no place to “elevate it” to anything. The Word of God is what it is, whether by word of mouth, or in writing.

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.

paradosis is the Word of God handed down.

It was oral, until it was written.

There are no oral traditions that have not been written at this point. Not all of them are contained in Scripture, Trinity, for example.

But if the oral preaching was fundamentally different than what was written down it should cause Israel to pause.

That is just the point. There has been no “fundamental difference” until the Reformation. At that time, people wanted to jettison the authority of the Church, so the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was invented for this purpose.

It’s like a checkbook. You cannot spend money without recording what you spent in the ledger. If you claim that the spent money was legitimate, but it was not reflected in the written ledger, there is a problem.

It amazes me that you would characterize the Word of God as a checkbook. Each to his own, I guess.

the two sources of divine truth (oral tradition and inspired word) must have the feature of carbon copy.

This is an invention. There is no such Apostolic teaching. It is an invention necessary to jettison the Sacred Tradition, and serves that purpose very well.

If we lean on the oral tradition without seeing it recorded by the Holy Spirit, it will be like a car without the proper alignment. It veers off in one direction. There is no balance.

From our perspective, this is exactly what has happened when the Scripture was separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it.

 

[guanophore]

Do you believe everything that St. Paul taught was written in his epistles?

If anyone has the recordings of St. Pauls preaching at the hall of Tyrannus, I would love to have those!

8 And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, arguing and pleading about the kingdom of God; 9 but when some were stubborn and disbelieved, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them, taking the disciples with him, and argued daily in the hall of Tyran′nus.10 This continued for two years, so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.

Clearly everything he taught must be written somewhere!

 

[Benadam]

Did you mean to say: what was written down came from the people. Was it formed by the people? …

tgGodsway, Yes, the Word made visible, remembered by oral tradition and then written are all expressed by the people and formed as a response to time.

Our discussion today is about two things: (1) about whether or not tradition is an inspired source, and (2) whether or not we should elevate it as such, to a place of infallibility.

From what I understand, Catholics say yes to both.

Without Tradition the Word is just a blink in human history. In as much as Tradition can reveal Truth, it and only it can be the standard of Truth.

I agree. But if the oral preaching was fundamentally different than what was written down it should cause Israel to pause. There would be a breakdown between the two. Some would side with the oral preaching and claim it to be correct. Other’s would side with the written word and claim it was correct.

Since what was and is Oral, is true as it was and is God Breathed, is the source of all tradition that follows from the visible Word. Since what became written was what was spoken it’s impossible for what was Oral to be error that the written doesn’t inherit. If one accepts that both are inspired expressions of the Word one must accept the eternal characteristic of inspiration.

 

[Benadam]

agree. But if the oral preaching was fundamentally different than what was written down it should cause Israel to pause. There would be a breakdown between the two. Some would side with the oral preaching and claim it to be correct. Other’s would side with the written word and claim it was correct.

I missed what you were trying to say here the first post… Sorry. In the case of the Testimony to the Jews remember that the origin is the finger of God that writes the law on tablets. What comes after, has authority of Moses but Moses is fallible.

 

[Benadam]

It might be a poor analogy but the two sources of divine truth (oral tradition and inspired word) must have the feature of carbon copy. If we lean on the oral tradition without seeing it recorded by the Holy Spirit, it will be like a car without the proper alignment. It veers off in one direction. There is no balance.

Oral tradition is inspired Word. If you agree that it is in the beginning inspired then it is a gift from God that is not temporal but eternal. If you claim it ended, when did it and who expressed it’s final Word?

 

[tgGodsway]

A few questions here Benadam.

On what basis was it concluded that oral tradition was inspired in light of human frailty to miscommunicate. Who among the apostolic circle taught us that oral tradition was inspired and therefore infallible? Lastly, it light of Paul’s claim that he did not receive his revelation from MAN, but God alone, (Gal.1) and in light of the fact that the written letters, gospels, epistles did not become inspired 4 centuries later, but when the ink dried the word of God was commissioned, how can we still place such trust in oral tradition? especially in light of obvious contradictions in more recent years?

 

[tgGodsway]

This got me curious. Do you believe everything that St. Paul taught was written in his epistles?

We must remember that Paul is only an actor in the play. Paul only recorded what the Holy Spirit wanted him to say. I agree that Paul said many things that were good and correct that were not recorded. But there is one sure word, deliberately recorded because the holy Spirit wanted it to preserve correctly in each generation.

We let the holy Spirit be in charge of what He wanted to say. This reminds me of John’s words, “There are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” John 21. So, again, tradition, in my view is not an evil, but if tradition will work in sink with what we know to be infallible scripture, there shouldn’t be a problem.

But again, that tradition must have its roots in actual apostolic actors to convince me. People speaking two centuries later, causes me to want verification and confirmation.

 

[Benadam]

On what basis was it concluded that oral tradition was inspired in light of human frailty to miscommunicate.

On the basis that that was for hundreds of years the only expression of Word of God. And consequently considered up to the task of being the only expression of the Word of God to the whole World. Apostles left to evangelize the nations thinking that the Gospel would be spread entirely by Word of mouth. Why would that infallible expression of the Word become fallible if it is written? Which reminds me of the question you didn’t answer. I’ll answer your questions if you answer the question I asked you already

Oral tradition is inspired Word. If you agree that it is in the beginning inspired then it is a gift from God that is not temporal but eternal. If you claim it ended, when did it and who expressed it’s final Word?

 

[MT1926]

We must remember that Paul is only an actor in the play. Paul only recorded what the Holy Spirit wanted him to say. I agree that Paul said many things that were good and correct that were not recorded. But there is one sure word, deliberately recorded because the holy Spirit wanted it to preserve correctly in each generation.

I totally agree the Holy Spirit led St. Paul to write what was important.

We let the holy Spirit be in charge of what He wanted to say.

Once again I agree. However, I also believe the exact same Holy Spirit led St. Peter to write…

2 Peter 3:15-16
15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

The Holy Spirit outright tells us we might not understand what St. Paul wrote. Taking this fact, direct from the Holy Spirit, why didn’t the Holy Spirit lead St. Paul to write an interpretation of what he meant.

I believe instead of writing an interpretation of what he meant the Holy Spirit instructed him to write 2 Timothy 2. Instructing these faithful men on his interpretation, to be handed down orally for future generations.

But again, that tradition must have its roots in actual apostolic actors to convince me. People speaking two centuries later, causes me to want verification and confirmation.

Totally, agree. However, you never explain what your verification process is. You keep claiming the “Apostolic circle” however you keep giving interpretations of scripture from men who spoke 1500 years after the Apostles and claim, without any proof, that their interpretations line up with those of the Apostolic circle. I’m not trying to be unreasonable here, I’m just trying to get you to see that the only evidence you have given any of us is your claim that your interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit. You can’t take the Bible Alone, which needs to be interpreted, and claim this is the interpretation the Apostles believed. You need to show us extra Biblical sources from the first few centuries that show us what the early Christians believed the Sacred writings meant.

I believe the Holy Spirit intended 2 Timothy 2 to be just as important as any other verse of scripture. I don’t think we can ignore the importance of these faithful men just because we are capable of reading the Bible for ourselves.

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

But again, that tradition must have its roots in actual apostolic actors to convince me. People speaking two centuries later, causes me to want verification and confirmation.

tgG, I just found this thread and have browsed through it. You have some of the same questions I have. I’m fine with saying the Apostles taught orally and in writing. That is a fact. However, I am not inclined to believe the apostles taught something, that it wasn’t part of the everyday life of the church for decades or even centuries, and yet is still part of “Sacred Tradition” that is the full teaching of the Apostles in both written and oral teachings.

As I’ve studied the writing of the early church fathers and church history in general you can almost see the thought process of how some of these doctrines developed over time. You can see where they start showing up in writings and start becoming part of the life of the church. My question is simple, if all of these things are part of what was taught orally by the Apostles why did it take decades or even centuries for them to even be mentioned in passing by the church fathers and/or be recorded as accepted practices of the church (as opposed to practices of individuals)?

 

[po18guy]

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.

What you believe; what you intend can be far from the reality of divine revelation. You have been taught that truth is essentially individual - that what “speaks to you” from God’s (printed) word is the truth. So, if truth is indeed individual and God’s word speaks differently to you than to all other Christians - and it certainly does - how come you are certain that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong?

Ponder that.

Well did Peter write 2,000 years ago that the scriptures were twisted. Peter’s writing reveales at least two things:

1. He had to have authority to say that; to teach that; to write that.
2. He had absolute authority to determine what was twisted and what was not.

Which raises the HUGE third point:

1. From whence comes your authority? ?

Ponder this honestly and it will greatly aid you on your search for truth.

 

[MT1926]

I’m fine with saying the Apostles taught orally and in writing. That is a fact. However, I am not inclined to believe the apostles taught something, that it wasn’t part of the everyday life of the church for decades or even centuries, and yet is still part of “Sacred Tradition” that is the full teaching of the Apostles in both written and oral teachings.

I understand what you are getting at with the rest of you post but before we can address the rest of the post first we need to address what you mean when you say “you are fine with saying the Apostles taught orally and in writing.”?

As I am trying to point out with tgG, I believe part of what the Apostles taught orally is what they meant by what was written.

Are you fine with agreeing there would have to be an Oral tradition, concerning Biblical Interpretation, that would have needed to be handed on, by faithful men (2 Timothy 2), for us to be able to understand 2000 years later what the Apostles meant by what they wrote?

If not what do you mean when you say I’m fine with saying the Apostles taught orally and in writing? and what do you believe they taught Orally?

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

As I’ve studied the writing of the early church fathers and church history in general you can almost see the thought process of how some of these doctrines developed over time. You can see where they start showing up in writings and start becoming part of the life of the church.

I was wondering how long do you believe it should have taken for doctrine to develop? What would be your time frame and why?

As others have pointed out the doctrine of the Trinity took centuries before it was fully understood.

God Bless