Oral Tradition, is it infallible?

[gregoryphealy]

What do you define as oral tradition? Does it differ from what the Catholic Catechism states:

"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.
…
“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”
…
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

I’m sure we agree that some degree of faithful oral transmission of the Bible was necessary, right? The illiterate surely couldn’t have subscribed to the idea of sola scriptura, and several times in the Bible the “traditions” taught to a people are instructed to be kept. Could the Apostles have taught something pertaining to Jesus’ life that was not recorded in the Bible?

You think oral tradition died “when the ink dried” on what were the oral traditions of the apostles, right? Or is your qualm that you don’t think the whole of what’s associated with Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church today is valid? What do you think is associated with Sacred Tradition that shouldn’t be? When another denomination attempts to “faithfully preserve, expound and spread [the teachings of Christ] abroad by their preaching” of messages not directly conveyed by the Bible (like a stance on contraception), how does that differ from the Catholic Tradition, and can that be infallible?

My opinion is that if there’s no authoritative interpretation of scripture, who are we to believe? How many denominations of Christianity are there today with their own traditions and interpretations? You seem to be of the mind that we can come to decisive conclusions regarding implicit messages in the Bible, and how they apply to contemporary situations (pertaining to faith and morals), am I correct?

 

[MT1926]

Maybe God was using the reformers to correct the church.

Which reformer?

The reformers tried to get together and on the same page but soon found out the other reformers had no more authority than the authority they had claimed for themselves. Leaving Luther with no Authority to tell Calvin or anyone else they are wrong and must follow him.

Also, seeing that many Christian sects that sprang out of the reformation disagree with what the reformers believed, how is it even possible to make the claim God was using these reformers to correct the church, which you would also have to admit to this very day is continually being corrected every time someone pulls a new idea out of the Bible, claiming they are being guided by the Holy Spirit.

For instance, the reformers believed in the Sacrament of Baptism, which many don’t believe is necessary anymore.

God Bless

 

[tgGodsway]

gregoryphealy, thank you for your statements. You may be surprised that I agree with much of what you have said here. As I have stated on this forum in other places, I am not anti-tradition. I can accept any tradition as long as there is no glaring contradiction to what we find in the inspired word. Much of what is practiced in the CC is NOT a carbon copy of what the word of God says.

 

[tgGodsway]

Who are these faithful men?
Honestly I have not studied it from this angle. But the statement itself does not sound like Paul had specific men in mind. He was making a general statement. I don’t think we know who these men were who dealt specifically with Timothy. But that wasn’t the point was it?

Were these faithful men suppose to teach other men? Yes…

Where did these faithful men go?

The Holy Spirit did not supply specific information on these men.

Is it possible these faithful men wrote extra biblical writings explaining the meaning of scripture?

I would not call them "extra-biblical’ writings, it implies that their understanding was also infallible. If the Holy Spirit wanted to repeat what He had already said through the Apostles, using these men, it was surely within His power to do so. But that was not the case.

 

[tgGodsway]

Was Timothy the only faithful man given these instructions or did the other 12 Apostles give these very same instructions to the faithful men that followed them?

Perhaps Timothy was the only faithful man, the holy Spirit wanted to use in scripture, (in this book.) But this doesn’t imply that there were no other faithful men. It is better to find the driving principle behind these kind of statements rather than isolating them out for special treatment.

 

[MT1926]

I would not call them "extra-biblical’ writings, it implies that their understanding was also infallible. If the Holy Spirit wanted to repeat what He had already said through the Apostles, using these men, it was surely within His power to do so. But that was not the case.

Sorry, I meant their Biblical interpretations.

I’m not sure whether you don’t seem to get it or if you just refuse to accept it. These men are simply giving us the first and second century understanding of the interpretation of the Bible. Sure you have to deny what they say because what they say is contrary to what you believe.

However, if we take what you state to the fullest extent, that nothing that is not written in the Bible was useful for us to learn it’s meaning. Then as soon as we start to agree with you we have to automatically dismiss every single post you have made on this forum. Because I am sure you would agree that the Holy Spirit would have put your name in the Bible if he intended for any of us to listen to you.

I realize you need to ignore verses like 2 Timothy 2 and have to refuse to answer my questions, even though you are the one who challenged me to hit you with a hard verse.

God Bless

 

[steve-b]

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?

Infallible statements / teachings have requirements.

"we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,

that is, when,

in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

From

If a decree doesn’t meet that requirement. it isn’t considered infallible

 

[MT1926]

Perhaps Timothy was the only faithful man recorded in scripture who was given these instructions. We should not use conjecture to stretch the point. It’s okay to not know everything about every thing.

Sorry, but I must disagree. It is hardly a stretch to come to the conclusion that this instruction was given to other followers of the other Apostles. Was the Holy Spirit only guiding Paul? Don’t you think the other Apostles would have did the same thing St. Paul did once they read his letters? After all you are the one claiming everyone had a copy of St. Paul’s writings from the start.

It is better to find the driving principle behind these kind of statements rather than isolating them out for special treatment.

I’m pretty sure that is what I was asking in my questions.

To me the “driving principle” behind this statement is St. Paul assuring that what he has taught Timothy will be taught to other men who will teach others. St. Paul’s driving principle behind this statement was his personal assurance that people will not take his words and twist them. His soul purpose here seems to give the authority over his written word to Timothy and instruct him to hand on his written word to other faithful men who will have the authority to interpret his words.

What do you believe the driving principle is?

God Bless

 

[tgGodsway]

Again, if other witnesses who took their teaching directly from the Apostles preach that word or write it down. I have no problem accepting them or using their writings. As long as there are no glaring contradictions between what they say and what the founding eye-witnesses say. This is not a hard concept MT. Again, tradition is fine, as long as the checks and balances are practiced.

 

[tgGodsway]

Sorry, but I must disagree. It is hardly a stretch to come to the conclusion that this instruction was given to other followers of the other Apostles

And thus the word “Perhaps” was used. These leaders were all commanded to make disciples of every nation. They were commanded to entrust this gospel to faithful men. At the same time the environment of the 1st. Century was absolutely hostile to Christianity. Was it possible that spies could penetrate the camp? yes… was it possible that men would twist what they heard from Peter or John and Paul? yes…

 

[steve-b]

Again, if other witnesses who took their teaching directly from the Apostles preach that word or write it down. I have no problem accepting them or using their writings. As long as there are no glaring contradictions between what they say and what the founding eye-witnesses say. This is not a hard concept MT.

You have to prove that “you know” what that is, because what you just said needs provable evidence properly referenced. Otherwise, by what authority are you appealing to for such knowledge? Don’t respond with a circular argument like saying scripture. You have no idea who is or who isn’t a “founding eye-witness” other than believe what the Catholic Church has taught, and who was there from the beginning, approved as the true tradition, and belief, and not just pass on “here say”.

tgGodsway:

Again, tradition is fine, as long as the checks and balances are practiced.

That’s why Jesus established His Church on Peter as the leader and those in full communion with Peter. He did THAT before a single word of the NT was written by the authority of His One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church…

 

[steve-b]

lanman87:

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

From Augustine, Ch 4

He makes a very honest statement writing against the heretic Manichaeus

“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)— not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.”

Moving to ch 5, Augustine writes
“For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”

 

[gregoryphealy]

I can accept any tradition as long as there is no glaring contradiction to what we find in the inspired word. Much of what is practiced in the CC is NOT a carbon copy of what the word of God says.

Do you agree that the teachings contained within the Bible are final, but the extrapolation of those teachings to modern contexts must necessarily not be final? Are your concerns predominantly pertaining to things that the CC calls Tradition that aren’t found in the Bible, or things that are found in the Bible and directly contradict what the CC is now doing? If the latter, I’m curious, what aspects of the CC you find in contradiction with the inspired word?

 

[MT1926]

Again, if other witnesses who took their teaching directly from the Apostles preach that word or write it down. I have no problem accepting them or using their writings. As long as there are no glaring contradictions between what they say and what the founding eye-witnesses say.

I totally agree with you hear. That’s why every word from the Church Fathers isn’t considered to be authoritative.

The problem we have here, which you might not want to admit, is you know what the founding eye-witnesses said but you have no proof that you know, infallible, what they meant. Therefore, if one of the Church Fathers sights a Bible verse, like on the real presence, you believe you were given the authority to make the final say on whether that Church Father is contradicting scriptures or not.

You have two choices you can either claim that you were given the final say or you can point to who you believe Jesus gave the final say. In the end someone always has to hold the authority.

This is not a hard concept MT. Again, tradition is fine, as long as the checks and balances are practiced.

Once again I agree. The only point I am trying to make is no where in the Bible does it say tgGodsway was given the authority over these “checks and balances”.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

At the same time the environment of the 1st. Century was absolutely hostile to Christianity. Was it possible that spies could penetrate the camp? yes… was it possible that men would twist what they heard from Peter or John and Paul? yes…

What’s your point here??? Is this the best you can do to dismiss 2 Timothy 2?

Don’t you see that you just opened up a whole can of worms here?

If you truly believe spies infiltrated and corrupted the oral teachings in the 1st century, why would you believe in the Bible?

How do you know the person who copied the gospels or that made the copies of the copies of gospels wasn’t one of these so called “Spies”. The earliest fragment in existence today is a small corner of John’s Gospel dating to the middle of the second century. Like 100 years after the infiltration of your Spies.

Since you believe the early Church was Sola Scriptura wouldn’t these “Spies” have known that and made their top priority rewriting the Bible? I mean why try to change the meaning of the text when you could easily just rewrite the text? Especially, since you believe their memories were so bad that nobody would have had the Bible memorized.

To believe the early Church, being guided by the Holy Spirit, was incapable of picking out faithful men to pass on the interpretations just raises more questions. You are building a house of cards that will tumble under it’s own weight.

God Bless

 

[tgGodsway]

Do you agree that the teachings contained within the Bible are final, but the extrapolation of those teachings to modern contexts must necessarily not be final?

Yes but the extrapolations of those teachings to not just modern context, but to any context are not necessarily final.

Are your concerns predominantly pertaining to things that the CC calls Tradition that aren’t found in the Bible, or things that are found in the Bible and directly contradict what the CC is now doing?

Some things have no biblical validation, while other things are simply poor interpretation in my view.

? If the latter, I’m curious, what aspects of the CC you find in contradiction with the inspired word?

Well we can begin at the beginning. The whole concept of a chain of Bishop-rule or POPE, and how Peter was installed to shepherd over all other Churches, is a concept not only foreign to the evidence found in scripture but flies in direct contradiction to all teaching from scripture on biblical government.

 

[tgGodsway]

The problem we have here, which you might not want to admit, is you know what the founding eye-witnesses said but you have no proof that you know, infallible, what they meant. Therefore, if one of the Church Fathers sights a Bible verse, like on the real presence, you believe you were given the authority to make the final say on whether that Church Father is contradicting scriptures or not.

What would be the difference between what I interpret from scripture and what a Church father would interpret from scripture, seeing that we both have the same document to glean from, and assuming we both have the same holy Spirit leading us?
Just for the sake of argument, let’s say we both have the same education and IQ? Let’s say this church father was from the 1500’s. and I am from today.

What could we both be looking at to draw such a difference in the interpretation?

If authority is the only thing standing between us, I would argue that I have the very same Holy Spirit in me, commissioning me to teach the word of God, and I too answer to higher human authorities who “send me” to do God’s work. And I too am a living member of God’s Church universal. And since God is no respecter of persons, what other authority is needed?

 

[tgGodsway]

What’s your point here??? Is this the best you can do to dismiss 2 Timothy 2?

Don’t you see that you just opened up a whole can of worms here?

If you truly believe spies infiltrated and corrupted the oral teachings in the 1st century, why would you believe in the Bible?

First of all, I did not say that I believed that Paul’s word or Timothy’s was corrupted. But certainly the presence of false doctrine was pressing into the Church.

But I do not worry about these things in the way it seems you do. I have chosen to trust the accuracy of scripture. I believe the holy Spirit preserved it with ease and perhaps oral tradition too, at least the tradition that is in sync. with scripture.

 

[tgGodsway]

To believe the early Church, being guided by the Holy Spirit, was incapable of picking out faithful men to pass on the interpretations just raises more questions. You are building a house of cards that will tumble under it’s own weight

O’ my goodness, I never said that either. MT, you invent and bloviate my words. Paul gave a charge for Timothy to impart the gospel to faithful men. It isn’t any more complicated than that. Whether the mission was accomplished, I don’t know. But we do have the Apostle’s teachings just in case. Aren’t you glad.

 

[MT1926]

What would be the difference between what I interpret from scripture and what a Church father would interpret from scripture, seeing that we both have the same document to glean from, and assuming we both have the same holy Spirit leading us?

I don’t know maybe 2000 years?

How about some of them learned directly from the mouth of an Apostle?

They knew the original languages?

They knew the “jargon/slang” of that time period?

Would you like me to keep going?

Just for the sake of argument, let’s say we both have the same education and IQ? Let’s say this church father was from the 1500’s. and I am from today.

I’m talking about the Church Fathers of the first few centuries. You are comparing apples and oranges.

and I too answer to higher human authorities who “send me” to do God’s work

Why do you answer to a higher human authority. I thought your interpretation is just as good as there’s?

Not to mention how do you know they have any authority over you in the first place? Where did their authority come from?

God Bless